Youtube videos

[admin]

Channel 4 Investigation suggests only 2% of Epstein data released to public – Terabytes missing
by Tim El-Sheikh
February 12, 2026
https://retortmedia.com/topics/epstein/ ... s-missing/

While the recent deluge of documents from the DOJ felt like a breakthrough, Channel 4’s investigation indicates we are barely scratching the surface.
The Retort is an independent media outlet with fearless, hype-free, open-access analyses and expert discussions that dismantle the complex interplay of technology, business and society. Become a paid member here to support and protect our independence with access to bonus content.

On the day I hosted The CEO Retort Live episode with my good friend and one of the world’s leading geopolitical experts, Professor Scott Lucas, discussing the latest contemptuous behaviour by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in covering up the Epstein scandal, Channel 4 News dropped a bombshell investigation that suggested there might be 98% missing data.

In other words, the current Epstein “Data Dump” is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to analysis led by Anushka Asthana, internal emails discovered within the released cache indicate that the public may have only seen a tiny fraction — potentially as little as 2% — of the total evidence seized by the FBI from Jeffrey Epstein’s properties.

According to the DOJ’s press release – published on Friday, January 30, 2026 – over 2,000 videos and 180,000 images are included in the combined prior releases, which makes the total production nearly 3.5 million pages released in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

These files were collected from five primary sources, including the Florida and New York cases against Epstein, the New York case against Maxwell, the New York cases investigating Epstein’s death, the Florida case investigating a former butler of Epstein, Multiple FBI investigations, and the Office of Inspector General investigation into Epstein’s death.

In one of the emails uncovered in the Data Dump, sent internally within the FBI and DOJ on March 10, 2025, it states that the FBI are “looking at a total of approximately 14.6 Terabytes of archived data to unpack. The current Data Dump is said to be around 300 Gigabytes.

The Channel 4 News report highlights more than just a volume issue. It is the quality and transparency of the release that have come under fire, with many files being corrupted or too massive to open, while other documents appear to have been intentionally separated, stripping them of their original context.

Channel 4’s video published earlier today highlighted grainy “spycam” clips found within the files, purportedly showing Epstein filming himself and potential victims at his Palm Beach estate. Former DOJ officials, including Liz Oyer, have raised concerns that the limited scope of the release may stem from “ill motivations” rather than technical errors.

For those who suffered at the hands of Epstein, this partial disclosure feels like another broken promise. Survivors have expressed their frustration to Channel 4 News, stating they believe the Trump administration failed to honour their demands for total transparency. They argue that as long as 98% of the data remains hidden, full accountability for Epstein’s high-profile associates remains impossible.

The fallout continues to ripple across the Atlantic, where the documents have reignited scrutiny of British elite figures, such as the former Prince Andrew and Lord Peter Mandelson, as more details emerge from this fragmented record.

At this rate, it may take years before officials around the world get to the bottom of this scandal. We are setting up a whole dedicated section on The Retort to keep track of these revelations. Keep an eye out for the upcoming Epstein Watch section. Our thoughts are with the victims.

[admin]

Pam Bondi gets NIGHTMARE NEWS about Epstein files
Brian Tyler Cohen
Feb 19, 2026 Brian Tyler Cohen



Transcript

I'm joined now by Congressman Ted Lou.
Congressman, thanks for joining me.
Honored to be on your show.
So, Congressman, you've pointed out in a
clip that's going viral across social
media right now that Donald Trump
himself is implicated in the Epstein
files with accusations that are beyond
heinous. Now, Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi,
Kash Patel have all come forward and
basically said that there's no reason to
look into the files and any
co-conspirators because they don't
exist. And so, how do you square these
two things where you have evidence
against Donald Trump himself in these
files and yet all of these law
enforcement officials who refuse to
acknowledge objective reality?

Absolutely. Pam Bondi and Kash Patel
lied under oath. Todd Blanche also lied,
but he wasn't under oath. So lucky for
him, if you look at the Epstein files
release that's come out so far, there
are multiple documents where there's
evidence implicating Trump, and not just
crimes, but deeply serious crimes. And
so I'll just give you one example.

The FBI's own internal slideshow that
they had, it's about 21 slides, two
of their allegations are about Donald
Trump committing crimes. You also have a
FBI document. It's a intake form of a
witness who called the FBI's National
Threat Operations Center. And the
witness reports that he met a girl who
directly told him that Trump and Epstein
raped her. Department of Justice never
interviews this witness. Doesn't do
followup.

Now, the you had posted about this
online on DOJ's rapid response account
and and granted I take everything that
the administration especially as it
relates to the Epstein files with a
grain of salt, but they said that she
spoke with the FBI and her claims were
deemed not credible. This was all
unredacted as we said. So, can I have
your reaction to the DOJ's rapid
response account?

Well, that's just false. So, the
document I'm referring to is an intake
form from the FBI's National Threat
Operations Center. The person making the
witness statement was a man relaying
what a girl he met had told him. This
man was also a limousine driver for
Donald Trump. And he also says in
the same witness report that he
overheard Donald Trump talking to
Jeffrey on his cell phone talking about
abusing a girl and that what Donald
Trump said was so disturbing the man
wanted to stop the limo and hurt Trump.
So, this seems like a very credible
witness and the Department of Justice
never interviews him. I don't really
know what the rapid response for the
Department of Justice is talking about.
They're clearly talking about some other
document that I'm not referring to.

And again, there's the FBI's own
internal slideshow. And then there's
other documents that have been now sort
of dissected by folks who are
independent journalists and folks on
social media that show there's two other
allegations essentially of women that
have made allegations against Donald
Trump that would have Trump basically
having sex relations with a minor. So,
how does Todd Blanche get off then in
saying that there's there's no reason to
investigate any of the
co-conspirators? Because they aren't
even co-conspirators. This is just
Jeffrey Epstein orchestrating a sex
trafficking ring where he traffics a
thousand girls to himself when evidence
like this exists?

Well, just think how ludicrous it is
just based on your recounting of it. The
Department of Justice has confirmed
there's over 1,000 victims of Epstein's
global pedophilia sex trafficking ring.
And the Trump Department of Justice has
held zero men accountable. Yeah,
it's just a ludicrous number. And other
countries are taking this far more
seriously. France, for example, uh they
their main Paris prosecutor has uh open
an investigation, a criminal
investigation. Um they have arrested a
uh person. And then you've got the UAE
that is also taking some serious action.
Britain has right taken Prince Andrew,
stripped him of his title and kicked him
out of his home. And now they're looking
at opening a criminal investigation. So
everyone is taking it seriously except
Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, and Todd Blanch.
Les Wexner, who is one of the uh uh
accused co-conspirators within the
Epstein files, um was was interviewed
today at the House Oversight Committee.
And I know that you sit on judiciary,
but as far as the reporting goes, there
wasn't a single Republican who showed up
to uh to that hearing. It was only
Democrats. And so, what is your reaction
to the fact that the Republicans
couldn't be bothered to show up for one
of the few co-conspirators who we
actually know about despite the best
efforts of the Trump administration to
hide all of this?
Other than a handful of Republicans uh
like Thomas Massie. Yeah. uh and uh
Lauren Boowbert and um Nancy Mason,
Anapoleon Luna, most of them are
complicit. They are complicit in the
cover up. They don't want to talk about
this and they know that Donald Trump is
implicated uh in the Epstein files. He
is in the files over 38,000 times
according to a New York Times analysis.
Other analysis have him more than that.
And you've got multiple documents of
actual witnesses alleging firsthand of
crimes that Donald Trump committed. And
then you have the Department of Justice
not following up in terms of what the
next steps are hopefully going to be in
Congress. What are you looking to do?
Because I know that this process is is
kind of slogging its way forward. You're
not going to get any assistance from
Republicans. You're not you're certainly
not going to get any assistance from the
DOJ or the Trump administration. So
every victory here has to be, you know,
hard fought and won. But what is the
next priority in terms of the Epstein
files?
It is super helpful that you have many
people in America looking at these
documents. The sheer volume is
overwhelming. Over 3 million documents
have been released. So it's helpful when
we get notice of folks that say, "Hey,
look at this document. There's something
really strange here or incriminatory or
creepy." And you see that happen on
social media and on the internet. So
that is helpful. Uh in addition, the
administration is not immune to public
pressure. So the more Americans that
speak up uh that ask questions. I think
every reporter uh should be asking Pam
Bondi and Todd Blanch uh the question of
are you withholding any photo, video, or
document that has Donald Trump in it in
the Epstein files? Uh and if so, why are
you withholding it? Well, my concern
here, and I'm sure this is a concern
that that you and other members of
Congress share, is that if something is
too damning as far as Trump is
concerned, that the DOJ is just going to
destroy it. And so, how can you have
confidence that that if the DOJ does
have some smoking gun or some or some
damaging evidence that points back to
Donald Trump or any of his pals or
donors that it's actually going to it's
it's going to be retained by this DOJ?
So you would hope uh that the Americans
serving in the Department of Justice who
have looked at these documents and
videos and photos uh will number one
remember what they saw uh and number two
not commit a crime and destroy them. Uh
so that is the hope. Now you know if
people are going to engage in crimes uh
then that is definitely a problem and
hopefully that that won't happen. And I
do note that for a number of crimes such
as murder or rape under federal law,
there is no statute of limitations. So
the next administration can come in and
look at all these files, choose release
them, choose to prosecute. And again,
this is not just about Donald Trump. Uh
there are multiple perpetrators and
co-conspirators. You have former Prince
Andrew. I I showed photos of Pam Bondi
where she acknowledged
former president was with a sex traffic
victim. That photo by itself is evidence
of a crime, right?
And there's all this other evidence in
books and other documents about former
Prince Andrew. She could indict him
right now and a grand jury would indict.
I don't know why she doesn't do that.
Well, if if we know that there is
evidence of crimes contained within
these files, people who should be held
to account, and you have DOJ officials
whose job is to hold criminals to
account, who instead are deferring to
protecting these people, aren't aren't
these DOJ officials like Pam Bondi and
Todd Blanch and Cash Patel basically
presenting themselves as accessories
after the fact? Isn't this evidence of
them committing the crime because they
were supposed to a release these files
in accordance with the Epstein Files
Transparency Act and B prosecute them in
accordance with their own oath to the US
Constitution as law enforcement
officials at the DOJ?
Pam Bonnie and Cash Patel committed
perjury. That is a crime and obviously
Pam Bonnie is not going to prosecute
herself, right? But another uh
administration could. And then you have
just um unbelievable
screw-ups where uh they put victim's
names out unredacted and they ruin a a
number of lives. Um and and so you're
looking at this and you just wonder were
they careless or were they malicious? Uh
it is um just very disappointing,
depressing to see and I don't know how
Pam Bonnie, Cash Patel and Tab Lanch
look at themselves in the mirror. What
responsibility does the subsequent
Democratic administration have to
fearlessly and relentlessly pursuing
justice? And I asked that as as someone
who watched the Merrick Garland
Department of Justice drag its feet on
holding Trump accountable for two years
because they wanted to avoid the optics
of politicization. But but in effect,
all you do by trying to avoid a
politicized DOJ is is basically give a
free pass to a political figure and kind
of swing the pendulum in the opposite
direction. And so what responsibility h
does this the next attorney general who
has some commitment to the rule of law
have to relentlessly, fearlessly
pursuing um pursuing this stuff as
opposed to, you know, what we saw in
past administrations.
Uh, the reason that you see a number of
MAGA influencers now turning against
Trump on the Epstein Files is because
people understand this isn't just about
Donald Trump. This is about a global
pedophilia sex operation that had over a
thousand victims. We're talking about
girls who were raped and sexually
assaulted. And you can't just sort of
make that go away or not deal with it or
say, you know, it's just on Epstein. Um,
and people have this innate sense of
justice and accountability and people
want that to happen. And whether it
falls on a perpetrator who happens to be
a Republican or a Democrat or an
independent doesn't really matter.
People who are engaged uh in this
despicable, horrendous behavior need to
be held accountable. And I think the
American public, whether you're right or
left, just can't understand why the
Trump Department of Justice looks like
it's doing a cover up of this horrific
sex operation that Epstein was engaged
in.
You know, you had mentioned at the top
there are only a few Republicans who are
actually participating in trying to
uncover what's happening here. You had
mentioned Thomas Massie, Anna Paulina
Luna, um Nancy Mace, uh Marjorie Taylor
Green before she had left Congress,
Lauren Boowbert. So, you know, the list
is small. Have you heard from any
Republican colleagues behind the scenes?
And and granted, I I know that, you
know, we we've heard this song before
where you have Republicans kind of
murmur things behind the scenes, but
they're too afraid to say it publicly,
but does that exist in this scenario, or
are they really allin, you know, even on
the issue of protecting a a notorious
pedophile?
You have to be uh in a cult uh to think
that Donald Trump is completely innocent
uh with regard to Epstein files. Yeah.
Remember that you know Trump fought very
hard to not have these files released.
Uh so some of them are in a cult and I
think they believe that but I think the
majority understand that uh he is
implicated in these files. And I just
want to note that during the House
Judiciary Committee hearing with Pam
Bondi um only two Republicans asked
about the Epstein files. Thomas Massie
and Chip Rory. Every single other
Republican avoided that issue. And that
tells you all you need to know about the
state of the Republican party. Yeah, I
think that's perfectly put. We'll leave
it there, Congressman. I appreciate your
time on this. Thank you so much.
Thank you.

[admin]

Trump Faces LEGAL NIGHTMARE After Survivors FLIP THE SCRIPT
Katie Phang
Feb 19, 2026 Interviews

The victims and survivors of Epstein, Maxwell, and others deserve justice. But, as Julie Roginsky and Gretchen Carlson note, “Jeffrey Epstein’s most powerful ally was silence.” They join Katie Phang for a discussion on NDAs, forced arbitration clauses, and other weapons to keep the truth from coming out when abuse occurs.



Transcript

NDAs, non-disclosure agreements, forced
arbitration clauses. These are just some
legal weapons that are used to silence
the victims of sexual harassment, sexual
assault, and other offenses. I invited
Julie Robinsky and Gretchen Carlson, the
co-founders of Lift Our Voices, to be
able to join me on this day when former
Prince Andrew has been arrested in the
United Kingdom. And yeah, I get it. He's
being criminally investigated for
sharing confidential government
information in his public office role.
But look, you can't ignore the fact that
his involvement in the Epstein orbit
directly deals with the silencing of the
victims and the survivors of Jeffrey
Epstein, Glenn Maxwell, and others. Take
a listen to this important conversation.
you're actually going to take heart with
the fight and the dedication that these
two incredible women have to be able to
get legislation passed so that others
don't have to go through what they've
been through. Joining me now is Gretchen
Carlson and Julie Rogensy. Look, today
is a pretty monumental day when I think
it comes to accountability for victims
and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, Glenn
Maxwell, and others. And I am known for
always saying in others because I truly
believe that you cannot run a
multi-deade sex trafficking ring on a
global level and not have the
facilitation, enabling, and assistance
of others. Those that participated and
those that actually turned away and kept
their silence when they should have
spoken up, which is incredibly relevant
to the conversation we're going to have
today. Julie, I want to start with you
because I wanted to get kind of your
topline thoughts and then Gretchian, I'm
going to ask you the same question about
the fact that you have former Prince
Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten
Windsor, who's not being arrested for
anything per se to do with the sex
trafficking in the Epstein Orbit, but
for an allegation of criminal misconduct
or abuse of public trust of a public
office. Um, somebody wrote on social
media to me something to the effect of,
well, look, they got Capone on tax
charges and not on murder. So maybe, you
know, maybe, just maybe, it's letting us
go there. But I do feel like there's a
symbolism to somebody like former Prince
Andrew um being arrested, especially
when part of the disclosure of the
Epstein files was the genesis, I think,
for what's happening now.
Yeah. Look, I mean, on the one hand, I
think it's a monumental day, as you
said. On the other hand, I find it to be
a little bit of a depressing day because
you have the brother of the head of
state of what used to be the British
Empire and now is the United Kingdom
brought up on charges and arrested
arrested. And meanwhile, here in the
United States, you have a president
whose name has been mentioned more in
the Epstein file, just the ones that
have been unredacted, more than Jesus
Christ's name was named in the Bible,
more than Harry Potter has been named in
all seven Harry Potter books. And yet,
nothing to see here on this side of the
Atlantic. Nothing to see here with his
secretary of commerce, who obviously has
also been busted just blatantly lying
about his connections to to Jeffrey
Epstein. It it seems like in order to
work in this administration, you needed
to have some sort of connection to
Jeffrey Epstein. And yet, nobody here on
this side of the pond has seen any kind
of accountability. The British
government is about to be brought down
potentially because Kier Starmer, the
prime minister, who's not accused of any
wrongdoing,
somehow made the calculated decision to
bring in Peter Mendelson, who had a
relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. is
one degree of separation at least and
the British government's about to be
brought down here in the United States.
Again, the president mentioned in the
Epstein files, adnauseium, nothing to
see here. We're not going to talk about
it anymore. All the files that have been
released are being released and nothing
more to be released and so on. Let's
move on to other topics. That says
something very broken about where we are
in this country as opposed to where the
rest of the world is, especially on this
issue. Gretchen, kind of the same
question posed to you, but a little bit
of a of a nuance change to it. You know,
the the name that is most identifiably
associated with former Prince Andrew is
Virginia Joffrey. She passed away April
25th of 2025. Is not here to see this
date. And again, I will underscore he's
not being arrested for per se sex
trafficking and those charges. But you,
like Virginia, had the courage to step
up and to say something at a time when
it was incredibly unpopular, when most
people would not give you any public
support for what you wanted to come
forth to to have the transparency of
what was happening to you and what had
happened to you. And and and I think
what's hard is, especially me as a
former prosecutor that that dealt with
these types of cases, it is a
traumatizing moment to have to go
through this over and over again, even
though people may be well-intentioned to
want to have justice and accountability.
Yes. Well, thank you for having me,
Katie. I would just off the top say that
what I experienced at Fox News does not
begin to compare to what Virginia faced
or any of the other Epstein survivors. I
was not a child and I was not sexually
assaulted.
So I I just want to be clear about that.
But yes, as far as being able to have
the courage to step forward, that is not
something that you decide to do like
walking into a room and flipping on the
light switch. I mean, this is something
that took me years to build up the
courage. Um, so I can relate to all of
these survivors on that level. And on
this day where you know we've had such a
monumental development with Prince
Andrew um and yet in the US we don't
seem to be seeing the same kind of
repercussions. The negative thing I
would point out is also yesterday no
Republicans showed up for the deposition
of of Lesnar which was so in other words
raise your hand if you're in favor of
abusing children because that's
essentially what they were telling the
American public. But I do want to spin
it a little more positively because I do
want to say that we wouldn't be having
this moment if it were not for the
survivors and we wouldn't be having the
arrest of Prince Andrew had it not been
for Virginia, even though those are not
necessarily the charges he's being
arrested on. So, I do I do just want to
always bring it back to remember what
this is really all about. They were not
listened to and potentially not believed
when they first started coming forward
more than 20 years ago.
But as Julie and I have been a part of
this movement, we know how much progress
has been made. And we know that these
women are now being believed by the
majority of the world. And that to me is
as significant as Prince Andrew being
arrested.
You know, Julie, I wanted you to explain
for our viewers. You and Gretchen
co-founded Lift Our Voices. Explain what
the organization does and why it is so
incredibly relevant to the conversation
we're having not only about Jeffrey
Epstein, but I also like to say I also
like to include Glenn Maxwell because I
do want to make sure that people
understand that perpetrators do not only
have to be men.
That's right. And it's not just Jeffrey
Epste and Glay Maxwell. It is, as you
said in your intro, countless and
countless people whose names we don't
yet know. And hopefully we will find out
soon. Look, Gresian and I both went
through something um pretty difficult at
Fox News, which we can't talk about
because we're bound by NDAs. Um which is
one of the reasons we started Lift Our
Voices. But uh Gretchen, I don't want to
speak for her, but Gretchen came forward
first. Of course, she was the first to
jump off this cliff all by herself. I
was still a Fox News when this happened.
I can tell you without violating my NDA
that the reaction to Gretchen jumping
off that cliff was this poor woman is
going to we'll never we'll never see her
again. I mean, she will be dead and
buried. we will never see her again. And
that is of course the opposite of what
happened and in a very short period of
time, I might add. But of course, that
was not the reaction because nobody
expected any accountability to happen
when Gretchen jumped off the cliff the
way that she did. Um about 10 months
after Gretchen did that, courage is
contagious. I also had the courage to
speak up because of her because she took
that first step to make it easier for
the rest of us. And when I went to um go
see lawyers to potentially sue, Fox News
and Roger Als Gretchen's lawyers were
the lawyers who I went to go see. And I
was told, "Do you have an arbitration
clause in your contract?" And I said, "I
have no idea what that is. I'm not, you
know, I'm fairly well educated, but I
just it never occurred to me to to even
know what that was." And they said,
"Well, you better go check because if
you have an arbitration clause in your
contract, we will not take your case."
And I said, "Well, what do you talk?
What do you mean?" Yeah. And they said,
you know, no matter how good your
evidence, no matter, it doesn't matter
if you have him dead to rights. We're
not even going to ask you what your
evidence is because if you have an
arbitration case clause, you will not
get any justice. You will not be able to
have your day in court. You will not get
any compensation. The odds are so
stacked against you that as lawyers,
we're not even going to bother taking
your case. Um these are the same lawyers
who got around Gretchen's arbitration
case by suing Roger Als personally um
and his capacity as just an individual
rather than his capacity at Fox News.
But that was a oneanddone situation.
They could not have replicated that
again. So luckily I did not have an
arbitration clause which is the only
reason arguably that you are able to
read my complaint and know what happened
to me. It turns out that so many women
with whom we worked at Fox one day would
just disappear and you'd wonder what
happened to them. You know what? And the
and the response would always be, well,
their ratings weren't so good or, you
know, they were really difficult to work
with and,
you know, these are just very difficult
women and they weren't really pulling
their own weight. And you'd think, wait
a second, these are like some pretty
prominent people who are on air. What do
you mean they weren't pulling their
weight? Oh, no. You know, behind the
scenes they really just weren't and the
ratings were really pretty bad and they
were really difficult. Turns out, of
course, when all of this kind of came
flowing forward, that they had all
complained about sexual misconduct,
either at Roger Als's hands or Bill
O'Reilly's hands or somebody else's
prominent hands. And they ended up being
pushed into arbitration and then shunted
off with an NDA, never to be seen or
heard from again. And not only did they
lose their jobs, for which they had
killed themselves, as both Gretchen and
I had, as you all know, it's not easy to
get onto, you know, cable news.
And not only had they lost those jobs,
but they also lost their chosen careers
because not one of those women is
working in television again. And um
that's and that's you're talking about
fairly affluent women, right? The people
who we serve at Lift Our Voices are
predominantly
women of color who make $13 or less an
hour. So if you're if you're making
minimum wage $13 or less an hour, 65% of
those people are bound by forced
arbitration. So imagine that they can't
I mean this is it for them and they
don't have access to lawyers the way
Gretchen and I did. They don't have
access to media the way Gretchen and I
did when we filed our lawsuit against
somebody really famous. This is just
that's it. It's over for them. So for
them it's better to not even speak up
because if you have an arbitration
clause, you're not even going to get any
kind of compensation to make it worth
your while to speak up for the most
part. And so as a result of that, Gretch
and I looked around and Gretchen had
been doing this work well before she and
I hooked up um to found Lift Our Voices.
But my issue was NDAs. I just could not
believe that I could not talk about
anything that happened to me. Um and and
still to this day, we can't tell our own
stories. Movies have been made about us.
Articles have been written about us. We
can't tell you whether they're accurate
or not. People have portrayed us in
literally major motion picture um movies
and nobody we can't tell you how
accurate those portrayals were. we
couldn't cooperate with them. We
couldn't do anything. And it's very
surreal to be living that way where
everybody has the right to tell your
story except you. And so NDAs are
something that is very near and dear to
Gretchen's my heart as well to make sure
that we can't have those for toxic
workplace issues because that's how we
sweep up bad behavior under the rug.
Yeah.
And so that's why we came together to
create lift our voices to make sure that
what happened to us would never happen
to anybody else again. And I'll let
Gretchen talk about how successful we've
been in doing that.
Yeah. Gretchen, share with our viewers
some of the laws that have been passed
at because of the hard work and devotion
towards transparency that you and Julie
and others have been chasing and
pursuing.
Yeah, thanks Katie. So, the reality was
when I stepped forward, I knew there was
an epidemic still of sexual misconduct
and bad behavior in the workplace. What
I did not know was that there was also
an epidemic of silencing people who had
the courage to come forward. And I
started to learn more about what the
hell is arbitration? Nobody understands
what this is. And I knew a little bit
about NDAs, but I thought the one that I
signed at Fox was just for trade
secrets, you know, and proprietary
information, which every company should
be able to have their employees sign.
But what's happened over time is that
one-third of all Americans have signed
NDAs on the first day of work that are
much more expansive. And they don't
understand that because it sounds really
flowery and it's wonderful language, but
it really says that you can't talk about
your pay, you can't talk about bad
behavior, you can't talk about
harassment, you can't talk about
anything. And they sign on the dotted
line for forced arbitration having no
idea what that means. So all these women
started reaching out to me and I was
like, "Holy cow, there's this similar
pattern." They all came forward. They
were all forced into arbitration. They
were all silenced with an NDA and they
never worked in their chosen profession
ever again. I got to do something about
this. And so I used my good Midwestern
sensibilities growing up in a small town
in Minnesota and I was always an
incredibly hard worker and I started
walking the halls of Congress and I was
like we we got to pass some laws to
change this. And luckily I found uh more
Democrats but some Republicans. I mean
I'll shout out to Lindsey Graham. He's
been the co-sponsor on the Republican
side of both of our pieces. We actually
have three pieces, but two that have
passed into laws.
And so after uh five years, I got to the
10 Republicans that I needed to overcome
the filibuster in the Senate. It was a
long slog, but uh March 3rd, coming up
now almost four years ago, March 3rd,
2022, we passed the ending forced
arbitration of sexual assault and sexual
harassment act, which means that if you
face sexual misconduct at work, you do
not have to be forced into arbitration.
You can have your day in court. And then
eight months later, we passed the Speak
Out Act, which gets rid of predispute
NDAs for sexual misconduct, which means
if you signed one of those NDAs on your
first day of work, and you're sexually
harassed, you don't have to abide by it
until a dispute arises, which would be
filing a lawsuit or something like that.
So, you own your voice for a much longer
period of time. We also have another
bill called the Protecting Older
Americans Act, which uh would get rid of
forced arbitration for age
discrimination. So, our strategy, Katie,
is to go one protected class at a time
because we knew if we tried to get
everyone, which we wholeheartedly
believe it should include all protected
classes, but we knew if we tried to do
that,
it would never pass in this environment.
Um, and and so strategically, we've been
very successful in trying to do it peace
meal. Um, it has a lot to do with who's
running Congress, too. So, you know, um,
right now we're not moving that swiftly.
Uh, but we continue to do the groundwork
to to to lay the groundwork, I should
say, for when there might be a change in
administration.
You know, Julie, you and Gretchen wrote
an incredibly powerful article in the
Guardian uh just about a month and some
change ago in December of 2025, and it
was entitled, Jeffrey Epstein's most
powerful ally was silence. And I just
wanted to kind of read out loud just
just a couple of the of the it was an
incredible piece. But you you start this
you and Gretchen start this by saying
that Epstein's story is not really about
one man's depravity. It's about a system
legal, cultural, and institutional
engineered to protect the powerful
through silence. His crimes thrived not
because they were hidden, but because
the people who knew were coerced,
encouraged, or more than willing to shut
up. There's the complicity, the
voluntary complicity we've seen, but I
want to talk just kind of on the nuance
of an NDA for somebody who is an
employee perhaps, right? So, there are
the people that like you and Gretchen um
that signed these agreements, employment
agreements, and others that included
certain draconian provisions that would
prevent you and silence you from
speaking up. But then there were people
in the Epstein orbit that were workers
that were there that were not complicit
per se in the criminal conduct, but yet
their hands are dirty because they
witnessed it, but because they were
subject to an NDA, for example, they
were not able to speak up or they've
chosen not to speak up. Kind of your
thoughts, Julie, about how the
enforcability of these types of
agreements just perpetrates the crime
and perpetrates the and continues the
trauma.
Yeah. Um, you know, there's so many
different dynamics that go on into this.
The first is, of course, the legal. You
can't say anything or else if you do,
we're going to sue you into oblivion.
And then balance is always huge because
you've got big corporations and their
lawyers and their HR companies and then
there's you. No matter how powerful you
may be as an individual in that company,
it doesn't matter. You're still just one
person. You've got the entire company
arrayed against you. So that's one. But
the second, and we always say this is
why changing culture is harder than
changing laws. There is an understanding
I think that exists and we saw this of
course firsthand when we faced our own
you know adversarial situations um where
we worked and I'm sure anybody watching
this has faced their own situations
where if you are in a bad situation and
you are at odds with the company or
you're at odds with your boss you're at
odds with HR but basically you're at
odds with whoever pays your salary all
of a sudden there are very few people
around you who are going to speak up
even if they agree with you because That
means they're putting their own careers
in jeopardy and their own livelihoods in
jeopardy. And there's a hundred
different reasons and excuses they might
give, right? I'm the soul bread winner.
Um, uh, you know, I I need the money. I,
you know, I'm a single mom. Like,
there's there's a hundred different
excuses. And they're valid. I'm not
suggesting they're not valid. Of course
they are for a lot of people. But the
reality is the same, which is that
you're very much on your own. And what's
so awful about these NDAs for the most
part is I signed an NDA um not at Fox
News but for a different ent for a
different entity where I could not tell
anybody about anything that I witnessed
or experienced at any time whatsoever.
Ever. I had a young woman come to me
telling me she was raped, begging me for
help. And I could not help her to the
extent that I wanted to because I was
being threatened with violating an NDA
if I were to tell her that she was not
alone, that other women on this in this
entity had experienced the same kind of
behavior. That is deeply disturbing
where we're literally preventing people
from helping rape survivors because you
want to cover up bad behavior. And what
that results in is of course the person
who's the survivor or the witness to the
bad behavior being pushed out, being
shunted to the side, as I said before,
choose not just losing their job, but
losing very often their chosen careers
while the perpetrator is protected over
and over and over again. And I'll say
this, I mean, maybe this is a violation
of my NDA, but he's now dead. Roger Als
did not start this bad behavior with
Gretchen Carlson, the first person to
speak up.
There are now stories about him engaging
this behavior going back to the 1950s
before any of us was born. I mean, this
is insane.
Holy crap.
And yet, nobody spoke up out of fear,
out of self-preservation, out of career
advancement. Some reasons are good, some
reasons are not as good. But it's very
similar to Jeffrey Epste, right? Like
Jeffrey Epste had a house full of staff.
many houses. Many houses
full of multiple staff, right? The
pilots, the the the the butlers, the the
the cleaner. I mean, name it, right?
Yeah.
And and none of them spoke up because
I'm sure all of them said, "Well, you
know what? I really I needed I needed I
need the money. Like, I'm not making
billions of dollars of Jeffrey Epstein.
This is how I support my family." That's
not an invalid concern. And yet what
this resulted in was crime upon crime
upon crime being committed against
little girls.
And yet nobody spoke up.
And and this is why you need to pass
laws because we have to force change.
Yep.
Yeah.
You know, we tackle these issues, Katie,
from a lot of different angles, but
passing laws is the most powerful
because it forces the change and then
that's how you change culture. And and
the more people that do speak up also
helps because it shows that then others
can do the same thing, right? Like if
you speak up and and quite honestly my
story, Julie's story, like people look
at our stories and think, well, they had
a pretty good outcome because they
didn't die. I mean, and they started
this that, you know, they they were they
were part of the igniting of this
movement and now they're helping so many
others. And so, you know, people look to
us and say, "Well, maybe I could do it,
too, right?" And that's how you start
this cultural change. But passing laws
is essential because, trust me, big
corporate America does not want to
change their policies because they've
been getting away with hiding their
dirty laundry for 40 plus years since
these silencing mechanisms exploded.
So, they're not going to probably do it
on their own. I mean, out of the Fortune
500, I'd say 10 to 20 companies don't
silence their people. That's it. 10 to
20. So, the majority know they can get
away with it and they know people don't
understand it and so they just keep
doing it. So, another big part of our
mission is we've got to educate people
about these issues so that they start
asking asking questions. And let me just
finally say, Katie, that
for anyone who's not on the side of the
survivors with Epstein, and I mean
anyone, I mean, if you are just a
resident down in Arkansas or California
or Wisconsin and you're a member of
Congress, shame on you. Shame on you.
you should not ever be reelected because
if this was your child,
you would not be sitting silent and you
would be showing up to the depositions
and I hope that all of them get what
they deserve, which is not to continue
to serve in office.
Julie, where can people go to get more
information about the hard work that you
and Gretchen have been doing where they
can find resources to educate themselves
as Gretchen speaks to? I mean, listen, I
am a trial lawyer and I'm somebody who's
dealt with restrictive covenants and
employment agreements. And I would
concur. Not only is there a complexity
to it legally, but there's the cultural,
societal, and emotional complexities of
it as well. And I know you guys are
there to be able to help folks navigate
this.
Yeah. Well, thank you so much for
asking. You can go to liftvoices.org,
which is our website. Um, please come to
the website. There are a billion
different resources that we link you to
uh and hopefully answer any questions
you might have. And for some reason, if
you are finding yourself in a really bad
place, reach out to us because Gretchen
and I spend all of our time, I shouldn't
say all of our time, a lot of our time,
talking to people, talking to survivors,
just know that you're not alone. Know
that anything that you're going through,
no matter how awful, um we either went
through it ourselves or we have spoken
to thousands and now it is really
thousands of people um who went through
something similar or much worse than
what we went through. And there is a an
army of people standing behind you. So
just please know that whatever you're
going through, you're not alone. That
there are people who are behind you.
Whether you are an Epstein survivor, in
which case you went through something
that could not possibly be more
traumatic, or just somebody who's been
harassed or discriminated against at
work, we're here for you and know that
you have an army behind you.
Thank you. seems insufficient to be able
to express to both you, Julie, and
Gretchen, for truly putting it all out
there. You really have put yourselves on
the line, not only to be able to find
justice for yourselves, but for the
voiceless, the people that maybe don't
know that they can stand up for
themselves. So, I really appreciate you
taking the time to join me here to have
this important conversation, and I look
forward to seeing you all very soon and
to continue to help in this fight.
Thanks so much. Thanks for having us.
Thank you.
Katie Fang here. We launched the Katie
Fang News Channel in partnership with
the Midas Touch Network so we could
bring you the latest in legal and
political news. Straight, no chaser. So,
if you're a fellow trutht teller, hit
that subscribe button and share the word
about this channel so we can build a
highinformation America

[admin]

Epstein: You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet
Politicon
Feb 4, 2026 Politics War Room (with James Carville & Al Hunt)



Transcript

I'll tell you how far away we are.
According to the Justice Department,
which I wouldn't believe, they say half
the documents. And what you know for
what you saw is only half. And also what
you know is what's left is much more
damaging what you seen. If you think
what you've seen now is damaging, you
have no idea what you have not seen. And
it will you I got news for Pam Bondi or
Todd Blanch or Trump or anybody. This is
not going away. It's not going away
forever because there's too much there
that we don't know. There's so much
there we suspect. And once the other 2
and a half million pages or whatever it
is gets released or even the stuff
that's been released, they're finding
stuff every day in this and they're
going to continue to do that. And and
you wait until, you know, we won't see
it, but some version of Robert Cairo is
going to do a eight volume work on this.
I mean, this story, if you think about
it, is utterly compelling and it fits
the public narrative that, you know,
elites do all these crazy things and
they cover it up and they get away with
it and it just not going anywhere and
it's going to be movies, plays, books,
songs, anything you can think of. This
is so This is not even 10%
gone. They're just you can't imagine
what people are going to find out.
[music]

[admin]

I Found Epstein's Adoption Agency
TruRed Geopolitics
Feb 19, 2026

I Found Epstein's Adoption Agency



Transcript

I just found the adoption agency Epstein
use to traffic the children. Susan
Hamlin was an assistant to Epstein. She
also found an organization called Kidsto
Families Adoption Agency. It worked with
families in the United States and
Ecuador. Now, there's a controversial
email that has surfaced. The sender is
redacted, but as you can see, the name
is Susan Hamlin. If you look close
enough, it's dated June 30th, 2014. Now,
below, Susan sends an email. It says, "I
give you permission to kill him. He is
with Olga. He lied to you and he lied to
me." Epstein replies saying, "Whoops."
to which Susan says, "No one will lie to
you and get away with it from me. No
one, whoops, is correct." Now, what's
insane is that this is the only time
Susan's name appears in the files. And
this email is the only way we even knew
her name. Nowhere else does her name
appear. The only way we found the name
is due to this redaction mistake. Now,
it's unconfirmed, but this woman might
be the Olga she's referring to. But once
you go down the rabbit hole, you then
ask, "Well, Epstein trafficked children.
Where did he get them from?" And of
course, setting up an adoption agency is
the perfect disguise. Think about it. To
Epstein, who's going to have a paper
trail of kids who have no parents
essentially. You understand the
thinking? So, this paints Susan as a key
figure in the trafficking network with
the adoption agency serving as a
potential pipeline for victims. In July
2020, The Son, a British newspaper,
published three articles. There was also
a video making serious allegations
against Susan. These articles claimed
that she groomed and procured young
women to be exploited by Epstein and
told the victims that Epstein would kill
them if ever they spoke out. The
challenge in researching kids to
families appears only in social media
posts and Reddit threads, but it was
this email I'm talking about that opened
this can of worms, and there's so much
more. So, here's another link to Susan.
So, here's another link to Susan.
There's a man named Jay Hamlin. He died
November 25th, 2013. In his obituary, a
donation can be made. But look at who
the donation is addressed to.
Furthermore, the board of directors of
the Kids to Families organization
includes a man named Paul Lawrence. He
was married to Susan Hamlin. However,
Paul died in 2014. Again, in this
obituary, there's a donation link to
kids to families. There's always a death
tied to Epstein. Do you see what I mean?
It's believed through this network, some
of the youngest trafficked were 5 years
old. Some were above 14. Many were in
the 7 to 12 year old range. But this
begs another question. How many more
agencies were there? He can't have just
had the one. This brings us on to Life
Touch, one of the most prominent school
photography companies in America. There
are many districts around America who've
cancelled the photo day at school
because of claims that Apollo Management
they were the ones that owned Life Touch
their CEO billionaire Leon Black. He's
named in the Epstein files. He may have
accessed the children's photos. Leon
Black regularly met with Epstein and was
advised by Epstein on financial matters.
However, Life Touch CEO Ken Murphy said
in an Instagram post that neither Leon
Black nor any of Apollo's directors or
investors had any access to Life Touch
photos. So, you got the kids to
families, right? Adoption agency. Then
you got the school photograph agency and
you can see the link there to Epstein.
Was there more? Are there further dots
to connect? Think about it. How did he
keep a lot of his victims quiet? some
point some will talk. But how did he
sweeten them up? How did he keep them
loyal? Well, he promised them, "I'll get
you into Harvard. I'll get you into
Colombia. I'll get you into this club.
I'll get you into that club." Here's an
email asking for a YMCA basketball
schedule. Was he keeping tabs on someone
he plays there? Furthermore, in 2012, he
launched Southern Trust Company
operating from his private island. The
company's purpose was to provide DNA
data mining services. But what made this
enterprise intriguing was the reported
revenue of over $200 million. According
to the New York Times, the filings
revealed that Southern Trust received a
$30 million loan in its first year,
though the source of this financing was
never disclosed. By 2013, Southern
Trust's first full operational year, the
company reported income of $51 million.
Why am I mentioning this? Well, Epstein
described the company's mission in vague
terms. He said what southern trust will
do is organizational mathematical
algorithms so that if I am predisposed
to cancer I can have my genes sequenced
to cure that. This is very similar to
the business model of 23 and me. Yes,
the genetics company. If Epstein was
genuinely engaged in DNA analysis, who
was providing the genetic data? Only a
handful of companies possess
sufficiently large DNA databases and the
financial resources to pay such
extraordinary fees he had. Was 23me
given him DNA data? You see, before
Epstein died, he nominated Boris
Nicolage, a close adviser to Bill Gates,
as a executor of his estate. Both
Nicolage and Gates appeared on Epstein's
flight logs. Nicholage later became the
lead fundraiser for Editas Medicine, a
DNA startup co-founded by George Church,
an Epstein collaborator. The company's
first investors included Bill Gates and
Google. And this brings us back to 23
andMe. It was founded by Anne Wajiki,
who was married to Google co-founder
Sergey Brin when she launched the
company. Sergey is also in the Epstein
files. Google pioneered the business
model of offering free software while
monetizing users personal data through
advertising. 23ME advanced this concept
further. The company charges consumers
to provide their DNA which it then sells
to pharmaceutical companies and research
institutions
such as Jeffrey Epstein's Trust. Do you
know who else were early investors in
23me? Harvey Weinstein, Wendy Murdoch.
They would host promotional parties and
distribute free testing kits at the
World Economic Forum in Davos. Their
marketing strategy focused on collecting
DNA from celebrities and global elites,
raising questions about why they
prioritize genetic material from the
world's most powerful individuals. They
were getting dirt on them and all us
normies on the ground. They were
collecting our data to spy on us and
maybe even traffic some of our children.
Epstein socialized with Wajjiki and Brin
at dinners even after his 2008
conviction. There's photographs
capturing Epstein at the same table as
Google executive Marissa Meyer as well
as other prominent figures. By 2012,
23me raised over $und00 million. One of
their investors, AB Kronrad, was a
former CIA executive director and Apollo
Global board member. Him and Leon Black
were in it from the beginning. They also
oversaw the Microsoft IPO that made Bill
Gates a billionaire. It's like these
connections just never end. AB Conrad
even purchased a home 2 mi from
Epstein's Palm Beach residence in 2018.
So, do you see the connections now from
the different agencies collecting data?
I want to end this video by going
through one last document to give you
the kind of depravity that these
children or these young adults were
going through. Here is a letter that was
written. It says, "Close your eyes.
Close your eyes. Close your eyes. Don't
speak. She doesn't talk. I can't stop
shaking. It's been a week." A decision
was made, but I can't tell Jeffrey.
These things happen. Why didn't I close
my eyes fast enough? The doctor was
different again. I think from Israel. He
had kind eyes, but didn't speak directly
to me. This was different. A shot and
those rod-like things had a hook and so
much pain. It sounds like what she's
describing is giving birth. GM said to
push all the pain away. I don't
understand. Blood and water all over the
bed. And she was right. Like a feeling
when your tummy hurts. She said to close
my eyes and put her hands over my eyes,
but I didn't close them because of these
tiny cries. I am so lost. I saw between
her fingers this tiny head and body in
the doctor's hands. It reached its tiny
arm up and had a tiny foot. I closed my
eyes and no more. Now have a look at
this.
that I don't know what that is, but that
looks freaky to me.
For some reason, whoever wrote this
document also mentioned Mara Lago. So,
do you understand what I'm saying? For
him to get individuals, children, and
traffic them. He set up his own agencies
in different parts to seduce the
vulnerable. And I don't even want to
think about what he did to these
children. Do you get my point?

[admin]

NM Rep REVEALS SHOCKING Details of Epstein Ranch INVESTIGATION
Katie Phang
Feb 27, 2026 Interviews

New Mexico isn’t waiting around for the Trump DOJ to bring justice to the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. Courtesy of Rep. Andrea Romero, the Epstein Truth Commission has launched and the NM AG, Raúl Torrez, has reopened criminal investigations. Rep. Romero joins Katie Phang for the latest details, including what community locals are saying about “The Playboy Ranch of Santa Fe.”



Transcript

Courtesy of State Representative Andre
Romero, the state of New Mexico now has
an Epstein Truth Commission. It's
working in tandem with the New Mexico
Attorney General Ro Torres, who has
reopened the criminal investigation into
Jeffrey Epstein and his Zoro Ranch. Now,
allegations have arisen that bodies have
been buried on Zoro Ranch, and there is
no statute of limitations when it comes
to murder. But I am joined today by
Representative Romero. we get into the
background of how this bipartisan push
to create this commission came to be.
The fact that this life of Jeffrey
Epstein, what he was doing there was not
a secret in that community in Santa Fe,
in fact they called it the Playboy Ranch
of Santa Fe. There are so many
unanswered questions, including why. Why
would the feds tell local authorities to
stop investigating Epstein and Zoa Ranch
back in 2019? This is the episode you
want to listen to because it also shows
that if the feds, if the Trump
administration isn't going to do
something about it to protect our
children and to bring justice to the Eps
survivors and victims, then the state of
New Mexico will. Joining me now is New
Mexico State Representative Andrea
Romero, who was the driving force behind
this amazing bipartisan subcommittee
that is now called the Epstein Truth
Commission. Representative Romero, thank
you so much for joining me today. It is
a privilege to spend time with you.
Likewise. Thank you so much for your
coverage on this issue and for, you
know, just continuing to press forth,
providing us new knowledge about what's
going on as well. I really appreciate
you.
Well, Rep, let's get into the details of
this. I actually walked through with my
viewers, my intrepid viewers that I feel
like I always say we went back to law
school together. Um, but I have the
resolution. I walked them through the
resolution uh almost like a week and
some change ago. But I was excited to
see that you guys actually have already
met. The Epstein Truth Commission
already had its first meeting the day
after. You guys passed this resolution
that you did with other members of the
House that were also Republicans, which
I was thrilled to see. It was a
bipartisan effort. You guys passed this
on President's Day when other people
were hanging out and relaxing and then
the following morning on February 17th,
you already had your first meeting. Can
you give us any insight into how things
are going so far?
Well, we're really just getting started.
It was a huge undertaking to get to that
place. Um, and we wanted to basically
start meeting immediately to be able to
get even all of the, you know, the the
cogs in the in the wheel up and running
um for our legislative council. So there
are a lot of moving parts in the
background um to show that we're you
know we're basically hiring folks. We
wanted the public to really understand
how we're laying the groundwork. Um but
since both but prior to and since the
formation of the commission we've been
getting new information um I've been
able to meet with survivors just this
last week um actually just a few days
ago. Um, so really making contact with
the folks who this commission is for,
which are the survivors. Um, and so
through that process, it's it's been
fast, furious, but also very um coming
to it's coming to fruition for all of us
about what we're doing. you know, we're
building protocols on everything from
confidentiality and the survivors that
we're speaking to to how we're operating
with our our New Mexico Department of
Justice, who has just launched a new
investigation into the criminal side of
uh Epstein's enterprise. So, we're all
trying to work in tandem. So, building
out those different um protocols and
resources that we have at our uh
disposal and and being able to move
things and get it up and running is what
we've really been doing through the
logistical piece.
You know, I was startled to learn I did,
you know, I had not appreciated the the
sheer immense size of Zoro Ranch,
Jeffrey Epstein's property in New
Mexico, more than 10,000 acres. Um, and
when I read though that your commission
is empowered with the following, the
ability to conduct hearings, to compel
the attendance of witnesses, to
administer oath and issue subpoenas. I
mean, and you are going to be generating
an interimm report and then a final
report. And I know that there is a quote
end date of December 31st of 2026, but
you're that this commission could
continue to go on. I mean, are you
envisioning for this commission exactly
those things? Calling in witnesses,
doing investigations, subpoenaing
information to be able to get to the
bottom of what, if anything, was going
on at Zoro Ranch.
That's exactly right. Um, we've just
been sort of trying to grapple with the
the fact of what it is that has not been
done by the justice system. Um, this was
a a formation that allows us to get to
the bottom of what happened because it
never happened. And and that's what's so
alarming about why why we even have to
go to this length um to do this type of
investigation when New Mexico had tried
in 2019 said, "Please help us, federal
government. We really um we need to do
something." And we were told to stand
down. Uh we don't know yet what our
local um law enforcement was doing at
that time. I think it's going to be an
undertaking for us to understand what
was provided to the federal government
that was never investigated, never
followed through upon. To know that this
ranch never had a full-on investigation.
Maybe it did. And yet we don't know what
files have not been released yet. That's
the other concern is that we don't know
what we don't know yet. Um and so we're
learning new things every day. The fact
that we have to do this as a truth
commission at all is, you know, um it's
alarming that the the justice for the
survivors has never been brought. Um but
it's it's our calling and as a state
house we have this power. It's
designated for our legislative body.
It's not a new thing. Um it's just very
uncommon. Um and so for us it's it's
really standing in our power as as
representatives of our our our people of
our state um who have asked us to to
stand in this power. Um and so yeah it's
it's it's certainly a journey for us our
legislative council many who have been
part of any sort of investigation like
this hasn't happened since the '9s
before that the '7s. And these were you
know situations that are very nuanced
and so but however it's in our
constitution. These are in our state
constitutions. Um, and so we will, you
know, enact that power when we need it
to subpoena, to get folks on the record,
to make sure that we have this public
record, a government obviously
overseeing and endorsing this process.
um so that we have this, you know, it's
it's it's been crazy that we we haven't
had this on the record yet.
You know, at a time when the toxicity of
our political parties seems to be the
common everyday part of our
conversation, I want to give a shout out
not only to you obviously, but to
Mariana Annayia, Andrea Reeb, and
William Hall II. Um, were you surprised
at the level of bipartisan interest and,
you know, to be able to do this?
Because, like I said, everybody's
fighting. There's so much infighting.
There's so much political fighting
between parties and yet we've also seen
nationally we also have Republican
support for the Democrats pushing ahead
to try to get transparency for the
victims and survivors of Epstein, Glenn
Maxwell, and others.
I think that's what's so powerful about
this story is that it's so uniting
regardless of of party. Um there is no
partisanship when it comes to people's
lives, human suffering, abuse. This
unites all of us in the fight for
justice. Um I as I started, you know,
asking questions when I I really feel
like felt like I was late to the Epstein
um story. It was last summer where um
started picking up on what is this news
that keeps referencing Santa Fe? You
know, what are we talking about? That's
our backyard. Why? Why did he have a
ranch in my, you know, in my county
with a with a built-in private runway
for his jet? But that's a whole other
thing, by the way. But go ahead. Yeah.
Any questions immediately that he was in
and out, in and out, and they kept
referencing this Zoro ranch in Santa Fe.
That's where I live, you know, and so I
was confused. Started talking to people
in community. Uh, did you know about
this? Oh, yeah. We knew him. Uh, we knew
we knew where he went to yoga. We knew
where he grocery shopped. Um,
this is just people. This is just people
in the community. This is just people,
everyday people in the community that
are like, "Yeah, we knew about Jeffrey
Epstein."
Yeah, we knew about him. Uh, we, you
know, he had a reputation uh about
women. His ranch was called the Playboy
Ranch of Santa Fe. I mean, these are
just common stories that we were hearing
um in and about town just starting to
open up the conversation. And then as we
started digging deeper, of course, there
were questions about what happened in
2019. Why was this never investigated
when he was indicted and coming to trial
in New York, New Mexico was asking
questions at that time. And so as I
started on the journey of well, why was
this never handled? How can we handle
this? um was then looking to our
legislative process as to how we could
come about um bringing you know justice
for for the survivors knowing that they
were still out there and possibly still
in our community and we know folks from
New Mexico who have come on the record
um as victims of Jeffrey Epstein. so so
close to home. Um so horrifying that
they have had nobody to go to in the
sense of where can I turn for justice?
And now that the statutes of limitations
have run so crazy to um have be in the
position to ask colleagues, would you
serve on this commission? What do you
think about doing this? Every single
person I spoke to, no matter who it was,
Republican, independent, Democrat,
universally said, "We must do this. We
have to do this." And so, unanimously,
our House passed this. We we kept it in
the House as well because many of our
Senate colleagues have been in there for
20, 30 years. So, we're new to this
political system in many ways. I've been
serving in the House now for 8 years.
this new political class of people who
have come in more recently do not have
these political connections or
affiliations that could perhaps um
inhibit us from doing the work that we
need to do. those were part of why we
set it up as just a house commission to
make sure that those would not those
relationships from the past um with
folks that are in the on the records in
the records being accused of crimes um
that that would not inhibit us um from
doing the work. So very strategic.
There's a lot of you know background in
and how we came to this place but
universally in our community has been
stop at nothing to get these folks
justice. This is about rule of law. This
is about justice. This is about fighting
for everyday people who have been abused
by a system of power, corruption, um
that has allowed them to run a muck on
our society. And so for us, I think
unitedly we're saying we've got to go
after everybody who deserves to be
sought after. And we have to stop at
nothing to bring justice to victims who
have suffered the most. And and that's
what it's about. It's about our humanity
in this story.
You know, you and I have now referenced
a few times since the beginning of this
episode the fact that 2019 was kind of
an inflection point for the state of New
Mexico. And I want to remind our viewers
that back in 2019,
the feds, the Southern District of New
York, the federal prosecutors there
directed New Mexico, it's Department of
Justice. And I've explained to our
viewers that [snorts] it's not the
United States DOJ that's in New Mexico.
New Mexico's Department of Justice is
the attorney general's office and its
own arm of investigation, but that the
feds told New Mexico authority, New
Mexican authorities to stand down, to
not continue to investigate allegations
of Epstein and Zoro Ranch. And in fact,
the current AG um Rahul Torres, who's
been a friend of our channel here and
has appeared here, he's ordered that the
criminal investigation into allegations
of illegal activity at Jeffrey Epstein
Zuro Ranch be reopened. and he outlined
in his presser from February 19th that
again it was stopped back in 2019 after
the feds basically said you're not going
to be moving forward. What I want to
know is, are you guys prepared, both AG
Torres and you, and your Epstein Truth
Commission, prepared to deal with,
frankly, the the throwing up of
obstacles by the feds because I know
y'all sent a letter, at least the DOJ,
the New Mexico Department of Justice
sent a letter to Todd Blanch on February
13th saying, "Let's have access to
unredacted files." And we've seen when
members of Congress, frankly, have tried
to get answers from Pamela Bondi at the
DOJ. I mean, are you kind of
anticipating getting some push back from
the feds for what y'all are trying to
do?
The reality is we don't know. I mean,
just two weeks ago, we learned about the
tip to um the FBI that was made about
bodies being buried at the ranch. This
is why this criminal investigation was
reopened. There is no statute of
limitations on murder in New Mexico. Um,
and that's why it's an open criminal
investigation. And up until that point,
we were saying there's, you know, beyond
a reasonable doubt, what can we do? We
can only recover documents. Now, we're
able to actually look into these things
as a criminal investigation. That's the
purview of the New Mexico Department of
Justice. Thankfully, as I started
flagging all together that we're going
to do this and we're going to need this
information at a certain point, it's
better that we start cooperating and
talking to each other right away. that
helped us establish and then have our
meeting day one uh once the
establishment of the commission was up
and running that we would be working
together in tandem. They do the beyond
the reasonable doubt the live you know
uh crimes that are investigated today.
We do the truth and record of holding
what happened that where people cannot
be held accountable to a specific crime
today and so getting that on the record.
So, we've been in this u back and forth
trying to recover a a a timeline, a
story. We know how absolutely uh
confusing the files can be. I mean, what
does this mean? Who is that? Why are
they in the
It's we're having to to really uncover
this whole story. But there's a there's
people in our community. There's folks
that worked on this and were told to
stand down. So there was a point to
which they were they were investigating
something serious enough and then told
stop right there. We we've got this. So
what happened up until that point that
they said stop right there. Um we've got
this. We don't have an established
understanding of what was actually
already prodded after already
investigated. That's what we're looking
for. That's what we haven't found in the
files. We had this one tip off of
potential bodies being buried and we're
already into a criminal investigation.
We keep learning things in real time. It
feels like every single day since that
has happened and how we've been able to
thankfully react, but we can't be
proactive about something that we just
don't know about right now. And that's
what's so so challenging about getting
this a foot. Um, but thankfully we're
all working in tandem now. We're very
hopeful. I have nothing but hope that
the federal government is going to be
cooperative. This is too important. Um I
I I hope they understand how critical
this is for not only our state, for the
nation and the world to know that
they're doing their jobs. Um but we'll
it's yet to be seen. We'll see. You
know, the word accountability is used
all day long, every day lately, and I
have been expressing my frustration that
um you know, the federal government in
and of itself doesn't necessarily honor
its promise to Americans about
transparency and accountability,
especially when it comes to the Epstein
files. So, to have you kind of be the
pioneer on this, Representative Romero,
I mean, you really are kind of breaking
barriers here because I think this is
what we're having to see. We're having
to see states saying we have to protect
our citizens, right? We have to answer
our accountabilities to our residents,
to our citizens in our state. And so now
we're seeing states like you and you
really have just broken this barrier
wide open of showing that there can be
this work done on a state level that we
don't necessarily have to turn our eyes
to the feds who may or may not be
playing games and offiscating the truth.
We can find the truth on our own. Your
thoughts? Have you heard from
constituents? Have you heard from people
about this new Epstein Truth Commission?
Are they excited? Are they I don't mean
excited in some weird way. I just mean
but are they just um just optimistic
that at least something's being done?
Well, universally we've received support
again bipartisanly. This was a unanimous
effort. We have Republicans and
Democrats in our state house. Everybody
asked questions about how are we going
to do it? What are we going to do? And
how they could support us in this
process. And I it's been overwhelming
the amount of support and praise for
just getting started, you know, and so
for me it's it's it's about being so
critical about what we need to do. I I'm
ex not excited in the way that you were
again same way to get to work. Um
because again the importance that this
carries for so many people across the
globe um about getting justice for
victims. You know, my hope is to New
York is listening, they can do that
work. Um, when we think about Florida,
when we think about the areas where this
was operative, you know, this is
something that we can can actually
collaborate on together. Our state is
certainly doing that. We've we've had
um, you know, openly from our governor.
If you need law enforcement support, if
you need, you know, whatever it is that
you need, these this is a big challenge,
but we're here for you. Um, and that was
the the take-home meeting for the first
time, many of his uh victims, uh, in
Washington DC this past week. They knew
about what we were doing in New Mexico,
and they were just so relieved that
there was some movement in the right
direction. I mean, we were moved. I was
just moved to total emotional states
just looking in the faces of people that
this is who this is for. you know, this
truth commission is about people who
have suffered for decades in many cases.
Um, so yeah, very powerful to have the
support that we have and I think for the
folks that are working on the inside of
this now, um, trying to get this up
running and and figuring out how to be
able to find the starting points for
such a a such a massive undertaking. Um,
we really feel empowered uh by our
community, by the love and support of of
the folks that this is for and certainly
um for for getting this to the public um
for getting the truth and for having
faith in a government that sees people
that supports them and that wants to do
right by them.
Um I want to before you and I part ways,
I do want to briefly talk about the
State of the Union. You and I just
missed each other in Washington DC just
a few days ago. you attended the State
of the Union as a guest of Congresswoman
Melanie Stansbury, of whom I am a huge
fan. Um, but other guests for Rep.
Stanbury included Epstein victims and
survivors. Um, your thoughts about the
fact that there can be partners, that
there can be uh people I mean I would
say Representative Sansbury has been one
of the loudest advocates that has been
pushing for transparency. She has been
so blunt about the need for justice in
this instance when it comes to
protecting our children moving forward
as well as giving justice and
accountability for those that have
suffered in the past. Just kind of your
thoughts about the fact that these
partnerships can exist. You've now
proven it that it can be bipartisan on a
state level and you're working with a a
federal um you know partner in
Congresswoman Stanberry.
Yeah. I mean, it's it's so interesting
how this has all played out since, you
know, we thought about the truth
commission, the Epstein uh transparency
act has been uh enacted and yet we're
still searching for answers. They are
our Congress people are some of the only
access points to unredacted documents
right now while the federal government
um is not complying with the requests of
our local government and jurisdiction to
get the documents unredacted to our
Department of Justice in New Mexico. So
we have this go-between with our
congressional representatives to go to
the Department of Justice and review
these documents directly unredacted.
we're going to have to trickle through
so much of this, but they've been at the
forefront for many, many, many months um
while we've been preparing for this to
try to get those answers and to try to
get it on the record. And thankfully, we
even have a semblance of three million
documents to to get through to get us to
the point of now we've reopened a
criminal investigation. So, all of these
things are are so critical to how we're
going to get this done. I wish it was
out there for folks to to tap into
immediately because there are so many
internet sleuths out there. Believe me,
that's how I got caught wind of Santa Fe
being part of this story was because of
the folks doing the work to keep this in
the news to keep proddding. Um, so thank
you to to those folks who have done that
incredible work to help us as policy
makers, as lawmakers follow through with
our duties to do that. And so kudos to
you for keeping up the the fight on the
coverage that this story does not go
away. We've heard that call. Now we're
taking action. And so it's it's going to
continue. But you know, we have to
understand that these systems are so
challenging to navigate through. Um, and
I hope this Department of Justice
federally, um, is hearing that we need
these answers and starts, you know,
cracking it open for us to be able to
get the answers we need. It's been far
too long. Um, and certainly the
challenges should not exist any longer
for us to to have these answers that we
need.
Listen, once again, you are incredibly
gracious, Representative Romero, but
listen, the thanks goes to you for using
your power. As you said a few minutes
ago, you were given this power. You were
elected into office to be able to do
this for not only your constituents, but
for the residents of New Mexico. and the
fact that you're doing this. I mean, my
thanks to you for being just intrepid
and for doing the hard work because I
think a lot of people have either turned
a blind eye or felt like it was so long
ago that it wasn't worth pursuing and
you're proving them all wrong. So, I
really appreciate it. New Mexico State
Representative Andrea Romero, look, the
door is open here. You come anytime. You
hang out and you let us know what's
going on. And I agree there is some
internet soouththing going on that it's
next level and it has really been a
gamecher and I'm grateful for those
folks just tirelessly also combing
through these files and making it
accessible so that we know what's going
on. But as I stated at the beginning, it
is a privilege to be able to spend time
with you. I am grateful and thank you
for being here.
Thank you Katie. Such a pleasure and
we'll have many more updates for you.
I'm sure long before our midway deadline
in July, I can imagine we'll have things
to talk about.
Absolutely. Thanks for getting here
again. Katie Fang here. We launched the
Katie Fang News Channel in partnership
with the Midas Touch Network so we could
bring you the latest in legal and
political news. Straight no chaser. So,
if you're a fellow trutht teller, hit
that subscribe button and share the word
about this channel so we can build a
high information America

[admin]

Epstein Said Trump Was A CORNERED Rat!
Sabby Sabs
Premiered Mar 2, 2026 #epsteinfilesupdate #sabbysabs #nickfuentes



Transcript

We have an Epstein file reveal again.
This information came out, and Iran
was hit right after it. This is very
damning, because it proves that Howard
Lutnick is a liar. It proves that Brett
Ratner is a damn liar, and it proves that
Donald Trump is a liar. All three of
them.



This photograph
has been removed from the Epstein files.
Let me show you something about this
photograph. Shout out to Jmail. The
DOJ removed this photo of what
appears to be Howard Lutnick. You can
still access it on Jmail. So Jmail, they
basically took all the files from the
Epstein files right
away, and they put it through Jmail. So,
you go to Jmail, and you can still see
some of the files that the DOJ removed.

Let's look at this picture, shall we?
Here's Jeffrey Epstein in the white
shirt, obviously.
This guy right here in the blue
button-down shirt and the white shorts
is Howard Lutnick.
They're on an island. See the water?
See the sand?
This guy over here looks very much like
Brett Ratner, the guy who said he never
went on Jeffrey Epstein's island.
Howard Lutnick said he went to the island
with his family,
with his kids.
Do you see any kids in this picture?
Do you see the wife? Right. It's all
good. Where are his wife and kids? Where are
they at? All I see are dudes. I don't
know who was in the orange shirt. And we
can't see the guy's face over here.
But here's Howard Lutnick on the island
with Jeffrey Epstein. And it appears
again, this looks like Brett Ratner, who
said he never went there
with no kids.
The DOJ removed this picture,
probably because of what I just told
you.
They're protecting Howard Lutnick.
They're protecting Brett Ratner. There
was no reason to remove this picture
from the files.
There are no girls in this picture,
but they removed it.



You will also see here
something else about Howard Lutnick. You
know Howard, who claims so much that he
just happened to not be in the towers on
911: "I just happened to take my kid to school
that day." Remember we talked about this?
So peep this fam.
Edie Lutnick, Howard Lutnick's sister, has
direct ties to Ghislaine Maxwell. After
Epstein was convicted of sex crimes,
Ghislaine Maxwell started Terramar,
and Edie happened to be a founding member
and supporter of the organization. So
now we see Howard Lutnik's sister also
had a connection to them. Check this
out.

This is Edie Lutnick, Howard Lutnick's
sister. And what do you know? She has
direct ties to Ghislaine Maxwell. In 2012,
after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of
sex crimes, Ghislaine Maxwell started Terramar,
a nonprofit organization to help
protect the high seas. What do you know?
Good old Edie just happened to be a
founding member, and supporter of the
organization. And this is years after
Howard said that he had cut all ties
with Jeffrey Epstein.

"Years later," my friend.
So, do you see this? Still all in the
family.

Edie and Howard are close. They're not
some distant relatives. Edie Lutnick is a
lawyer. She's also the co-founder and
serves as the president of the Cantor
Fitzgerald Relief Fund that was
established shortly after 9/11 at
Howard's request to support the families
that passed from 9/11. And one of the
craziest parts is that just like Howard
Lutnick, she just happened to not be in
the Twin Towers that day. Howard, his
wife, asked him to pick up the kids from
school, and in Edie's case, it happened
because of a cancelled appointment.

Okay, so let's just stop there for a
second. What are the possibilities that
Howard Lutnik and his sister just
happened to have
other things that would keep them out of
the towers on that day? We also know
that Ghislaine Maxwell from the files was
asked to be a part of the 9/11 shadow
commission. If you've been following me
recently, you also know that Ghislaine
Maxwell's sister
created a company, software company
called Chiliad,
which was basically champion to the
challenge of what happened with 9/11.
Chiliad was connected with the FBI, with
intelligence agencies.
And so you mean to tell me it just
happens to be a coincidence that Howard
Lutnick and his sister just happened to
not be there on that day?
She just happened to have a appointment?
He just happened to take his kid to
school?
Think about that.

One lucky family, and
also one that seems to be entrenched in
the Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell circle. As
always, I want to hear what you think
about all of this down below.

So, when I told you that all of these
people rolled together, all of these
people rolled together and now not
all of them, but many of them are trying
to say, "I just don't recall. I don't
remember even meeting Jeffrey Epstein. I
don't know anything about that guy at
all." These people been around.

Now here's the damning part about Donald
Trump that has just been revealed.
Follow me for this one.

https://epstein-emails.sfo3.digitaloceanspaces.com/docs/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031661.pdf
From: jeffrey E. [[email protected]]
Sent: 2/16/2017 12:21:21 AM
To: paul krassner [DELETE]
Subject: Re: Trump

i was pointing out that that alleged rape was reported to be at my house with donald and I raping her.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:07 PM, paul krassner <[DELETE]> wrote:

On Feb 1, 2017, at 7:39 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote

the allegation was not at a pedophile party, it was at my house with me.

to what wording would you suggest I change that?

OMG. Epstein in an email to Paul Krassner
with the subject line re Trump. I was
pointing out that the alleged assault
was reported to be at my house with
Donald and I assaulting her.
They're going to nuke Iran to bury those
files. Check this out.
This email is from Jeffrey Epstein. It
was sent February 16th, 2017.
Says right here to Paul Krasner.
Again, if we start at the bottom here
at 7:39 a.m.,
it said the allegation was equal not at
a pedophile party. It was at my house
with me.
To what wording would you suggest I
change that
response here? I was pointing out that
the alleged we're going to say sexual
assault is YouTube. The alleged sexual
assault was reported to equal e. This is
a symbol here. They're using it code for
something. Reported my house with Donald
and I sexually assaulting her.
That email was sent to Paul Krasner.
Like I'm not even Justice by Karma says,
"OMG, O FMG. How in the hell can this
stuff not be investigated?" That's what
I'm saying. This is why they are slowly
removing things from the files,
especially after people start to call it
out on social media.
That's why I said Donald Trump should be
testifying.
But he's out there starting wars so that
you forget about this.
The Epstein class, it gets worse. This
is one of the things that has just been
revealed. But I want to show you another
one. By the way, you can see it here in
the files for yourself.

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01211330.pdf



iMessage
2018-12-20 11:43:52 (UTC) [1]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] [DELETE], Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com )

On Red Square! Beautiful in an air of drifting snowflakes.Dinner with minister for
economy tonight. London tomorrow. So far very good. You?

iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 11:45:27 (UTC)
Sender: Self e:Jeeitunes il.com
Participants: ( ), Self ( e:[email protected])

Trump pulling troops out of syria , is a bad sign. He is up to something . And its not
good

iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 11:46:23 (UTC)
Sender: Self e:[email protected]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

btw. I believe that his pulling troops out of syria is step one

iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 11:46:56 (UTC)
Sender: Self (ej'[email protected]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected]

He needs a large diversion



iMessage
2018-12-20 11:51:07 UTC 4
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] ( [DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Total diversion-- but the right is on to him

iMessage
2018-12-20 11:52:07 (UTC) [3]
Sender: [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Everybody here surprised - and happy about it. Nobody quite understand why he did it - including myself.Completely opposite to what I was told in the White House. What is he



up to? Spoke with new Syria UN envoy, Geir Pedersen, who used to work for me.
Russians very good and kind.

iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 11:53:46 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

You guys need to understand that he is psychotic. And would not blink twice at
encouraging an attack on us . So he can leap to the country.s defense. . mindset. If I go down I m taking everyone with

iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 11:54:12 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Cornering a rat, never a good idea



iMessage
2018-12-20 11:56:42 (UTC) [1]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)

Syria shows that-- I'm no fan of our involvement but u can't do what he did and how he did it

iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 11:56:46 (UTC)
Sender: Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)
Participants: [DELETE] ( [DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Could be he doesn't want them there if a much bigger operation might put them in
jeopardy . Reminder , he will take everyone down with him, if he feels the end is
near. I always urge people not to corner a rat.. they become extremely dangerous and unpredictable

iMessage
2018-12-20 11:56:52 (UTC) [4]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] [DELETE] Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)

The right punching out



iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 11:57:52 (UTC)
Sender: Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

One explanation , is that he doesn't want them in harms way if he starts a larger regional issue

iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 11:58:13 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Take your family out of the house before you blow it up

iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 11:58:49 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Its the right move.



iMessage
[1] 2018-12-20 12:00:41 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)

China- paki . Russian turkey Iran. - he also might have just decided to trade the Kurds to turkey for them standing down on Saudi. The game is now on

iMessage
2018-12-20 12:02:27 UTC [3]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

My God! Is he that cornered?



iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 12:06:49 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Worse. Because it is not only him, it is his family. Biz etc. , I believe that mueller is making a mistake. And treating him like he is organized crime. . no organized crime leader has.a 1 million man army

iMessage
2018-12-20 12:07:39 (UTC) [3]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] [DELETE]

See your point!

iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 12:14:13 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

They are going drip by drip. But rats go crazy BEFORE the cage closes. Too much time. The republicans are beginning to understand .. I would nt be surprised to see him do things that might encourage a real problem



iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 12:14:22 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

So he can rush to the country defense

iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 12:16:27 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Either he traded the Kurds to turkey for Saudi. Or , he prefers to remove his family. Before he burns down his house

iMessage
2018-12-20 12:20:58 UTC [3]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE] ), Self (e:[email protected])

Probably the first. Has also struck my mind. Maybe he will extradite Gulen &
Company.Why would he remove the family?



iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 12:21:49 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

We only had 2k troops there , if he were to bomb Iran , they would be slaughtered

iMessage
2018-12-20 12:22:26 UTC [3]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Oh! That would be crazy!!

iMessage
[3] 2018-12-20 12:22:50 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (e:[email protected])

Not from his perspective



iMessage
2018-12-20 12:23:52 (UTC) [3]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] [DELETE] Self (e:[email protected])

Then he is really crazy!

iMessage
[1] 2018-12-20 12:24:20 (UTC)
Sender: Self (e:[email protected])
Participants: [DELETE] [DELETE] Self (e:[email protected])

Sound familiar



iMessage
[1] 2018-12-20 16:11:49 (UTC)
Sender: Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)

Great

iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 18:58:50 (UTC)
Sender: Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)
Participants: [DELETE] ([DELETE]), Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)

You must have really beaten him up on wall

iMessage
2018-12-20 18:59:23 (UTC) [4]
Sender: [DELETE] [DELETE]
Participants: [DELETE] [DELETE] Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)

He is getting crushed



iMessage
[4] 2018-12-20 19:44:32 (UTC)
Sender: Self (jeeitunes®gmail.com)
Participants: [DELETE] ( [DELETE]), Self ([email protected])

Sen George Mitchell a very close friend when senate majority leader. Said a budget
deal is never done earlier than 11 55 pm on the eve of a shutdown

This has not been removed.
We're going to go to
page five.
Check this out. So, this is from the
justice.gov website for the files, guys.
What? Watch this. This is 2018, December
of 2018, during Donald Trump's
presidency. Listen to what they reveal
here. Trump is pulling troops out of
Syria
is a bad sign. He is up to something and
it's not good. I'll make this larger so
you guys can
There we go. Some of these are
duplicated as you'll see. We'll continue
on.
Uh BTW, by the way, I believe that his
pulling troops out of Syria is step one.
See what I said? Like these files also
talk about foreign policy, not just
trafficking.
It goes on to say here he needs a large
diversion.
2018,
uh this part here, they're talking about
a quote here from uh Toori and Einstein.
We can skip that. That's not really
relevant to this part of the
conversation. But then we get to uh this
part right here.
The invisible chair. Total diversion,
but the right is on to him.
Look at this. I'm starting to sound
Indian. Total diversion, but the right
is on to him. They're talking about
Donald Trump
during his first term.
We don't know who Epstein is talking to
because they redacted these names.
Then it goes on to say, "Everybody here
surprised and I'm happy about it. Nobody
quite understood why he did it,
including myself. Completely opposite to
what I was told in the White House. What
is he up to?" Spoke with new Syria UN
envoy
Gear Patterson, who used to work for me.
Russians, very good and kind. Again, why
is Jeffrey Epstein focusing on Donald
Trump's foreign policy decisions
if they were just business partners
or interested in business together? Why?
Why is he talking about this? It gets
crazier.
Um, I told you some of these are
duplicates because they're resends. You
guys need to understand that he is
psychotic talking about Trump and would
not blink twice at encouraging an attack
on us so he can leap to the country's
defense mindset. If I go down, I'm
taking everyone with. We need to know
who this is speaking right here.
They're saying that if they were to go
down, they're taking everyone with them.
And we don't know who said that. See,
this is one of the ways that Jeffrey
Epstein blackmailed people.
I'm still shocked a lot of these people
actually said this [ __ ] over email, to
be honest.
Goes on here.
That's a duplicate there. Cornering a
rat. never a good idea.
Syria shows that I'm no fan of our
involvement, but you can't do what he
did and how he did it. You see how
they're talking about him behind his
back?
Okay.
Could be he doesn't want them there if a
much bigger operation might put them in
jeopardy. Reminder, he will take
everyone down with him if he feels the
end is near. I always urge people not to
corner a rat. They become extremely
dangerous and unpredictable.
So now they're saying that Trump would
take everyone down with him.
Okay,
moving on here. the right punching out.
One explanation is that he doesn't want
them in harm's way if he starts a larger
regional issue. You hear this
larger regional issue. Take your family
out of the house before you blow it up.
It's the right move.
China, Pakis, Pakistan, China, Pakistan,
Russia, Turkey, Iran. He also might have
just decided to trade the Kurds to to
Turkey for them standing down on Saudi.
The game is on now. Do you guys get what
they're saying here? They are saying
that Donald Trump Donald Trump is
willing to start a regional conflict to
divert the attention from himself.
And look at where we are today.
That was said in 2018.
So,
some people wonder if it was Steve
Bannon who was on these emails. I don't
know. They redacted the names, but it
says, "My god, is he that cornered?"
So, what they were basically saying is
that um Trump, if he feels cornered, he
is willing to start a regional conflict
to get the attention off of him. You
guys got to think about something for a
second. Donald Trump, you know, back in
the day, he was buddy buddy and mentored
by Roy Cohen, who was basically another,
you know, mob uh associate.
When Donald Trump's businesses got into
financial trouble, and it did, and he
had to, you know, take out loans and to
get things back up and going and stuff
like that, where' he get that money
from?
And the people who gave him the money,
what did he owe them in return?
This is why I say follow the money. It's
not even just about if Donald Trump
participated in trafficking or sexually
abused people. It's that's one piece,
but another piece is
who did Donald Trump owe money to? Who
did he borrow money from? And who did he
owe money to? and what did he have to do
for them in return?
I really think that's how people need to
be looking at this. A lot of people are
focusing on I don't think that Donald
Trump would abuse young girls. I don't
think you're looking at the bigger
picture. The bigger picture here is
following the money. Like I said, the
Epstein situation is a global criminal
enterprise
and they were blackmailing people that
they had [ __ ] on.
makes you wonder, like I said, they
probably blackmailed him, too.
And it brings me to this point, you
know,
I don't know.
Someone made this. I thought it was
pretty relevant. Would you really prefer
all of this to come out?
There's a picture there of Benjamin
Netany and Yahoo Epstein plus 8 file
disconfidential
video 2002. And then there's Donald
Trump right there sweating validation
pending
right
now. Roana was just questioned about
this. Why Donald Trump is not
testifying. Listen to this.
We have the votes to subpoena Lutnik.
I'm not I don't believe we have the
votes right now to subpoena uh President
Trump because the Republicans uh control
the House and I don't think you they
would uh vote with us on that. But when
Robert Garcia is chair of the oversight
committee, we will have those votes. And
the Clinton rule means that Donald Trump
and his family members should testify.
By the way, he should do it voluntarily.
I mean, he should look at what President
Clinton did. He answered every question.
Why can't Donald Trump do the same?
There's this question of these three FBI
interviews. There's someone who made
allegations against Donald Trump that
she was sexually abused as a minor. I
want to be very clear. There's no
evidence whether that's true or not, but
there were allegations made. One of
those witness interviews was released.
Three of them are hidden by the Justice
Department. Why are they hidden? When
will they be released? These are the
types of questions Donald Trump needs to
answer.
All right.
Yeah. So, that was the point there that
Roana made. Donald Trump should have to
testify. Uh, Melania should have to
testify. Like I said, she was Jeffrey
Epstein's girlfriend before she was
Donald Trump's girlfriend. You mean to
tell me Melania don't know anything?
Nobody knows anything, but all of these
activities took place.
Elites run the world. They do what they
want to do. And I find it very
interesting that the moment this
information was dropped, all of a sudden
Donald Trump was like, "Okay, that's it.
We gonna He was going to they were going
to strike Iran anyway."
I guess the DOJ forgot to take that one
out.
So, don't forget about the Epstein
files. It has gotten to the point now
where people are so pissed even Nick
Fuentes is telling people not to vote
for the Republican party. He's telling
them to vote Democrat. I'm not kidding
you. It's not a joke. Listen to this.
Something has gone horribly wrong.
All of those people, with some
exceptions, were never Trumpers in 2016.
Shapiro didn't vote for Trump in 16.
Mark Leavvin was critical of Trump in
2016.
Where were these people when the
movement was actually born? When those
pillars were in place. Now all of those
people are in the center. The movement
is something else now. And what we need
in 2028, this is our last chance. We
need in 2026 for this administration to
be shut the [ __ ] down. What does this
administration do other than cover up
the Epstein files, embezzle money
through government contracts, and bring
us to war for Israel? This
administration needs to be shut down
immediately.
Do not vote in the midterms. And if you
do, vote for Democrats. [ __ ] this. That
is what the Republicans deliver. That is
what our golden age looks like. The
tariffs were refunded. The deportations
were stopped. They wound down and
withdrew the ice from Minneapolis. What
does this administration do other than
embezzle money? go to war with Iran and
bury the Epstein files. Oh, and
blackmail Harvard so they police
anti-semitism
and ban people who criticize Israel from
being in America. This administration
needs to be shut down immediately. It
has forfeited its mandate. They promised
no new wars. They promised mass
deportations in America first. And we're
not getting any of it. So, shut it down
in 2026. shut it down. And our only hope
is that in 2028
in the Republican primary, somebody will
emerge who will actually put America
first. I am not voting for the vice
president and the secretary of state
that brought us to war in Iran. I won't
do it. 2026,
shut it down. You got to burn the house
down with them inside metaphorically.
And in 28, you better hope that somebody
has a prayer to run the Trump strategy
and do another hostile takeover over the
GOP. Otherwise, I'm going to become a
Democrat. Like,
so
Nick Fuentes has a large audience.
Now, I know what Nick Fuentes is doing.
I told you he's just a contrarian. He
jumps on an issue that he knows is going
to be he takes the contrarian position
because it's it's like the shock jock
thing. I've explained this to you guys
before. Like Howard Stern used to do
this like back in the day before he um
got his panties in a bunch later on. But
the point is Nick Fuentes does have a
large audience and a lot of viewers and
he is telling them to vote Democrat this
year. Now he could change his mind a
month from now and say something
different. But the point is he is
reaching people
to change their mind
and he flippity flip-flops all over the
place.
This is why some people call him a fed.
But the point is there are a lot of
people that watch him that listen to him
and do what he tells them to do.
So the Trump administration like I bruh
and not even just the Trump
administration but the elites altogether
the Epstein class of people are the ones
that are running [ __ ] And so what Nick
Fuentes should be telling people is what
I just told you. The Epstein class is
running [ __ ] They run the politicians.
They run the banks,
the universities,
all of it.
And some people that will look for look
at this from a biblical perspective,
they will see those people and they will
say that they are demonic, that those
people are evil.
However you want to look at it, the
reality is they have the money and the
resources to do whatever they want to
do. And apparently, according to the
Epstein files to also get away with
murder.
This puts the Republican party and the
Democratic party in a precarious
position because for the first time that
that I've seen in my life.
Both of them are, you know, kind of
complicit here. And not only that, but
they're exposed
because you see Democrats not wanting to
touch this and you see Republicans not
wanting to touch it.
People were asking like, "Well, what
about the women and the children?"
None of them cared about women and
children to begin with. That was just a
line they used to you so that you would
agree with them going to like destroy
these countries and have all these wars.
You can't you can't care about the women
and the children. You don't even want
people to have healthcare. You don't
care about the women and the children.
Care about your bottom line and your
political career.
These are the same people that are
bombing hospitals right now in Iran. The
same people that bomb hospitals in Gaza.
Same people that killed children abroad
and women.
And people are shocked that
they just don't seem to be interested or
care that all these crimes and
activities that are listed in the
Epstein files, they just don't really
want to try to do anything. They want to
protect their party, their team.
Both of these parties funded a genocide.
They don't give a damn.
Never forget that. Hey guys, this was a
savvy clip. If you like what you saw,
hit that like button and subscribe.

[admin]

The Epstein Files Come ROARING Back!
Glenn Kirschner
Apr 10, 2026

First, Donald Trump tells us 'enough with the Epstein files, the country needs to move on.' Then, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche says, the Department of Justice is done talking about the Epstein files.

But talk about a surprising plot twist! Melania Trump dramatically steps to a White House podium and says not so fast, let's get congressional hearings back on track.

And just like that, the Epstein files come roaring back

[admin]

Wolff: This Is What I Know About Melania Bombshell | Inside Trump's Head
The Daily Beast
Premiered 2 hours ago Inside Trump's Head

Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles dive deep into the mystery behind Melania Trump’s stunning public statement and the explosive theories it has unleashed. From a high-stakes anti-SLAPP lawsuit and whispers of Epstein-era connections to a branding blitz, geopolitical intrigue, and speculation of a calculated move against her own husband, Wolff dissects the legal battles, power plays, and personal tensions driving the drama. As conspiracies swirl the episode exposes the fragile intersection of politics, marriage, and media, revealing how one unexpected speech has reignited scandal, shaken the White House narrative, and forced the world to scrutinize what may lie beneath the carefully constructed Melania mystique.



Transcript

Chapter 1: Unpacking Melania’s Epstein Denial
From the beginning, she has fiercely tried to protect and control her version of her life.
After she came to New York in the 1990s. In the past,
where we understood that someone was the president of the United States or someone was the first lady, they were, you know, the public has a right to know.
The public has a right to discuss.
The public has the right to literally say anything they want about about these people who have such power in our lives.
This is a moment in time when when, when the president and the first lady have decided, you know, we're going to push back about that.
We're we're we're in control. You're not. Michael.
Joanna. Melania. Good afternoon.
The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.
The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards. Humility and respect.
That. That would be me. I think that would be me.
I don't understand how, as first lady representing the country of the United States, she hasn't figured out yet how to how to speak the language is just shocking to me.
However, Why now? Why is she coming out and making this speech now? Okay.
Well, I, you know, I think, I mean, we've had now, what, more than of of nobody talking about anything else but this.
And, I think we can reach the conclusion, that nobody knows anything.
Nobody has any idea why she did this. It's like, you know, reach for the stars.
It makes no sense. So let's. That should be our point of departure, and then we can go over all of the various,
the various theories. And I have a few new theories, perhaps to add to this, but I think the thing is,
and that we have to say, and everybody is an expert, everybody is pronouncing why the truth is, nobody knows. Nobody knows.
But you do have an ongoing legal case against us, so this is a good time to catch up with it.
The recap is, is that I received a threatening letter from Melania and Melania's lawyers about things I had said, linking her to Jeffrey Epstein.
Now that she puts out these letters on an almost at this point industrial scale, they go out.
I mean, The Daily Beast has gotten them gotten them before. This particular letter was directly to me. But there are other people who actually.
Oh, always as soon as somebody gets these letters, then they call me and say, oh, what? What do we do?
And, but anyway, I got this, I got this, this letter, and then my. And give us a time.
Michael, give us a time frame. When did you get the letter? October. So the end of October.
I got this this letter and, you know, and this is I mean, it's kind of scary.
You get a letter from the from the first lady and effectively from the president's lawyers. He has a, I, this is a pattern.
This is a pattern. And people have large media organizations. I am not obviously a large media organizations,
but large media organizations have gotten these letters from the president. And they have they have, folded, they've wilted.
They've paid tens, more than tens of millions of dollars because of these, these threats.
So I got this, this, $1 billion threat I have long standing relationships
with with, with First Amendment lawyers because I'm a writer and, and I, I called my lawyers.
I said, well, what do we do here? And they were, rightly appalled. I mean,
you know, you you have the first lady of the United States using the power of the presidency to based
Chapter 2: Legal Threats, Lawsuits, and the Anti-SLAPP Battle
basically in intimidate someone who is saying things that she or the president does not want, said.
And there is virtually nothing that I said that was that would be considered libelous in any kind of in any kind of strict legal understanding of what libel is.
So my attorney said, well, in New York State, actually to to intimidate like this, to make these kinds of threats
just to keep you from saying what you have every right to say is illegal. It's called a slap action.
And there is in New York State, anti-SLAPP laws. You can't do this.
It's just not it's just it's just,
a, a thing that you do not then the United States of America, you we, we understand, should not be done.
So instead of waiting for her to sue me, which,
we turned around and sued her under the slap laws in the state of New York.
So that happened the end of October, and that has now been been, and then I launched a Go Fund Me campaign,
which raised an enormous amount of money.
I mean, from more than 25,000 individual donors, we raised more than $800,000,
which, has certainly sent a message to the first lady.
And, I mean, it may it means that we can we can, we can continue this legal action against her for, for a quite a long time. And,
so, so we are now and these things creep along. I mean, it's astounding how slowly they they go.
They made a motion to bring the case into federal court. We're in state court. We made it. We filed a suit in state court.
They moved to to move it to federal court, which is their right.
But then the federal court has to ascertain whether it is properly before, before the federal court.
And that is where it is now.
There are a set of motions before a judge in a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, who happens to be a Trump appointed judge.
And whether that's a factor or not, we we don't know whether that will be a factor. We don't know.
But it is in for this is now for almost close to eight weeks before this,
before this judge in, in federal court and the issues before her are their side. They have moved to dismiss the case.
Of course we we don't we don't believe there's much a chance of of that. They've also moved to remove the case to Florida,
which would be a more advantageous jurisdiction for them.
We, in turn, have moved to remand the case to federal to, state court and our, our position there is it should be in state court because there are no federal issues.
And and the fact that, it might properly be in federal court if she were a, a citizen of Florida and I was a citizen of New York.
But we are arguing that that's a lie, that she is actually a citizen of New York. She spends most of her time here.
All her business interests are here. Her family is here.
Anything that would that would constitute a citizen relationship with a particular state is here.
And, and we've that's that's well-documented and we've and that's that evidence or the evidence that we have gathered is before the court.
And now we've asked if the court is not satisfied to let us have discovery,
which is to ask her for or all kinds of documentary evidence, including her prenuptial agreement, for instance,
the other, you've you've all sorry, you've asked Melania Trump for her. Let's also just we've just.
Yeah, we've just asked for discovery.
9 minutesAnd that's one of the things the judge has now has to decide on these on these issues.
Chapter 3: Controlling the Narrative: Melania’s Past and Immigration Questions
We're waiting for that decision which should, should, might and should come any day now.
So is that the reason that she has stepped forward?
This is the first time a first lady would have sued,
journalists or media organizations who are saying things about her.
We understand the, the law, sort of the law provides for I mean, almost I don't think there's any instance of a precedent or the first lady suing the media.
Now, this has gone on repeatedly in the Trump years, of course. And we should go on.
You know, the first the first lady, this has been really interesting. And I think that this is a key part of this from the beginning,
she has fiercely tried to protect and control her version of her life after she came to, New York in the 1990s.
Now, now that's, that whole story, that whole narrative is, has many confusing details.
How did she come here? Who brought her here under what legal auspices? How did she work here?
I mean, many, many, many details which are, you know, might be,
that might have answers that she does not want the public to know. And, that might be kind of complicated for her.
So what she has done to that to do that is she has she has, she has used the legal system to shut down questions about her life here.
Notably, she sued the Daily Mail, which suggested that she might have been an escort in New York.
And, the daily Mail settled letter after letter after letter of threat after threat after threat to anyone who brings up this subject.
So in the past,
where we understood that someone was the president of the United States or someone was the first lady, they were, you know, the public has a right to know.
The public has a right to discuss. The public has the right to speculate.
The public has a right to, literally say anything they want about about these people who have such power in our lives.
So this is now this is this is a moment in time when, when, when the president and the first lady have decided, you know, we're going to push back about that.
We're we're we're in control. You're not. Well, particularly notable was her documentary.
Of course, the president now refers to his wife as a movie star.
When asked who she was at the Easter egg hunt role by a child, he said, oh, that's a movie star.
She's the movie star.
But she had a full documentary when she could have addressed some of these issues.
And instead the entire documentary focuses on 20 days only in the run up to the inauguration.
So there's no there's no answer to the question that I think most people are fascinated and puzzled by, which is how did she, as a model,
get an Einstein visa?
A visa which accepts that you are a person of exceptional merit to move here, because we know that she wasn't actually a supermodel.
She definitely was a model. She did catalogs, but she wasn't a supermodel.
So how she got the Einstein visa for exceptional ability remains a puzzle.
Yeah. And let's let's open that up a little more, because I think the movie is important. Or the doc, the documentary.
Because what it does, what it inaugurates is a melania business. It's Melania the brand.
And she is busy building a a melania brand business of extensions and how to exploit her own name, how to monetize,
her, her own name and her own position. And she's created the the documentary is is a is an advertorial really.
It's not, it's not, it's un documenting. It's certainly not a documentary to inform us who she is.
It's a documentary to create the illusion of what she wants to be, a branding opportunity.
Chapter 4: The Melania Brand: Documentary, Image, and Monetization
And so, how is she branding herself, though? What is her brand?
What does it stand for? Well, I, I, I would be hard pressed to say it stands for. It stands, but but it seems to be.
It stands for. She's a glamorous, a glamorous woman who is, somehow connected to an enormous amount of power.
I mean, what what else? What else is there? I don't know, and it's this name and, you know, what are brands?
It's name recognition. I mean, she has a book. She put out a book. Melania the book now, Melania the movie.
So this is taking really a kind of a, a Trump, a Trump approach. Just put your name on everything.
No. Notably notably not the name Trump. The name Melania. Right. So is so it seemed to me very clearly.
Well, well there are so many there are so many questions that this statement, throws into the air. Not least,
why is she dragging attention back to the very issue that will not leave her husband alone,
but very briefly, because of the war has actually taken a back seat.
We know that this is an issue that enrages him, that we know that he and Jeffrey Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein continues now
to to unfold as the most diabolical man in America over the last 20 years, that he and Jeffrey Epstein were very close.
There are pictures of them all hanging out together Jeffrey Epstein, Melania Trump, Donald Trump and Glenn Maxwell now, of course, in jail for 20 years for sex trafficking. So.
So why is no attention back to that? Well, that is the question which nobody can satisfactorily answer.
And it's and, you know,
there are the, the theory, the perfectly reasonable theory that she is getting out ahead of something.
A, you know, the PR point of view, if you if you know that something disparaging is coming about you,
you should be the one to say it or to anticipate it and try to modify it or to head it off.
So that may be and a lot of people are speculating about a lot of possible issues. And we should we should get into that.
But the other thing that it could I mean, it's certainly,
it certainly feels like, is that it could be a direct dig in assault against her husband.
Who is this bad for? Who it is it who is it? A bad for the most. And it would seem to be, Donald Trump.
This is bringing back an issue that,
that, I mean, certainly hadn't gone away, but it had been muted at least for the past number of weeks of, of the, of the war.
And here we are, front and center.
No bigger issue today, yesterday, today and for the coming days or weeks again, then Jeffrey Epstein
and his relationship to the president and the first lady and the president yesterday said that,
that he'd had a sort of two minute conversation with her about whether or not she was going to do this.
He sort of sensed or he tried to give the impression that he knew she was going to give some kind of statement, but he didn't know how.
And then he said, well, if he'd been doing it, he might not have done it like this. So he seemed a somewhat nonplused by the fact that she'd done that.
It seemed to come as a surprise, certainly to the regular press corps who cover the white House.
Often you get a hint of, of what the of what the speech is going to be beforehand.
People knew that she was booked to make a speech that was in the white House diary, but no one expected this. It was as if she'd deliberately kept it secret.
I suspect that he was completely caught off guard by this, because it's so I mean, from left field. So,
yeah, I would say he knew nothing about this. And, and also remember, part of this statement was,
was this invitation to Congress to, to go deeper, to investigate more,
Chapter 5: Why Now? Epstein Ties Resurface and Fuel Speculation
to actually investigate, you know, the son of a bitch, her husband.
So if you're Donald Trump and you're thinking, well, who knows? What's that?
We're inside his head trying to figure out what he's thinking about the Strait of Juan. Well, since he's not inside his wife's head.
Well, I was going to say. How did he see it? Did someone call him and say, sir, you need to be watching. You should be, you know, just switch on the news.
He's always watching the news anyway, so maybe it wasn't a surprise to him because she suddenly pops up and there she is. But but,
as you say,
nobody has talked about anything else because, which of course means that there are all sorts of conspiracies going around about why this should happen.
One is the case that you have. The second is the strange case of Pablo Sampaoli, the owner of a modeling agency,
who says and according to Melania, he says he introduced Melania to Donald Trump at a party he was having.
And that's just the official version of how they met. As written in her book. Melania. Yes, in some. Poly, of course, had a relationship with Epstein at the time.
I mean, this whole the the modeling world.
I mean, we're right in the in the middle of this modeling world of the 1990s, the dirty 1990s, and
and, you know, in which everybody kind of knows everybody in this, in this relatively tight knit modeling world,
everybody is investing with everybody Epstein is investing in, in modeling agencies.
Trump is investing in modeling agencies. Polly is a model. Jean-Luc. What's that guy's name now? Sean Lee.
Now, you know, another completely suspicious character involved with all all of these people. And then in the middle of this, we have, you know, I mean,
Melania comes to New York, she's a model in New York dealing with with all of these people. Yes. Just so but go on.
That's just the background to the to well, this this is just the background because, Polly ends up having a long relationship with a Brazilian model called Amanda Magaro, with whom she has a child.
They then have what appears to be an acrimonious breakup, and it becomes evident that Amanda has overstayed on her visa.
And it appears that someone tipped off ice.
She is forced to self deport back to Brazil in the middle of a custody battle for the son that she has with Sampaoli.
She then goes on ex furious it appears.
And again, we're not sure if this is true, but this is one of the big stories that's being talked about out there.
She then goes on ex and posts that she is furious that Melania hasn't come to her help, that she has been close with Melania's family.
There are lots of pictures of them all hanging out together as recently as, 20, 22. And that she's prepared to tell all.
Of course, nobody knows what all is or what it refers to, but it's a threatening post. It's a threatening post on X.
Okay. But this is let's deconstruct this. This is a story that has been around for, you know, the better part of two months now.
It has a story that has gotten almost no traction. Social media notice, of course, you know,
but but, but certainly is not a substantial story. I mean, it's one he, you know, it's really is a he said, she said,
you know, marital complicated story. I mean, it seems it seems terrible. It seems that he, he dropped a dime on on his,
on his, ex partner on his child's mother. It seems terrible.
But it was also not a story in which in which, in which anyone was,
was linking Melania to Epstein. So. So it was a story that was not getting much traction.
It was a story that was not linking Melania to Epstein.
It was a story that one had no reason to believe would would mutate into a major crisis.
Chapter 6: Modeling World Connections and the Sampaoli Allegations
23 minutesExcept now it has. Why? Because she came out and made this announcement.
So she has whatever, whatever, whatever velocity this story now has is all due to her.
Well, and then to add another, spark to the conspiracy fire,
Donald Trump then posts a video,
a horrifying video of a man bludgeoning a woman to to death in Florida in a gas station,
which he says he's put out to remind people how awful the Democrats are and that these are the kind of people that the Democrats welcomed into the the country.
The man in question is a Haitian.
Immigrant. And so the timing of that people read into as somehow a threat from the president himself.
Yeah, I don't know. I mean, everybody is reading everything into into anything.
So we we don't we don't know how does how is this informing our understanding of why Melania is, suddenly made this announcement?
I'm like, okay, I don't, does it tell us anything? Does it get us anywhere? Do we know?
I mean, nothing has come out in the in since she had made this, since she made this statement. So all we really still have is the statement.
The statement is the news.
So if the statement was made to preempt news, it certainly hasn't preempted anything and has rather rather become the news itself.
So now we have it in. If this is about Melania's brand,
she is the the the Melania brand is suddenly very much tied to the Epstein story because she tied it.
o what is going on here? I think as things stand now, it seems it seems to
most directly track back to Melania's relationship with her husband.
Okay, so so we have theories. We have one that she is trying to get ahead of something.
It could be related to your own case.
As the first person to sue a first lady with the New York anti-SLAPP suit
so it could also be asking Congress to investigate the Epstein files more because she wants to know about her husband.
Because we know that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were friends for at least 15 years and close friends, and you've posited possibly even best friends.
Why would she want to know the truth about her, about her husband?
That would be a truth that would be damaging to her husband and therefore damaging to her, unless she wants to doesn't not not necessarily want to know the truth.
She wants to damage her husband, or she wants to threaten to damage her husband.
And, you know, remember, let's let's we we know that this is, to say the least, and unusual marriage.
They basically don't live together. This relationship, of the of the president and the first lady fits
no pattern of any president and first lady heretofore.
Well, and certainly people in the white House say that when she comes, she's she's treated as if she were a guest. So it's certainly a peculiar marriage.
It's also possible that she lives in a bubble,
that she didn't know there were all these things being said about her, and she went down some sort of spiral.
Yeah. I mean, you know, she went on the spiral on social media and sort of found all sorts of things. And so I have to put a stop to this. Yeah.
I mean, I suppose that that's true. I don't know how she thought that this would put a stop to it.
In, rather than having the opposite effect is, is fueling it.
But she certainly I seems to have known something because she sends out these letters all the time. $1 billion here, $1 billion there.
Give me a billion. Give me a billion.
But that also indicates that she is very aware she is trying to stop something.
Chapter 7: Inside the Trump Marriage: Power, Motives, and Strategy
And she is trying to stop something, and we're not absolutely sure what the something is. Right.
And she may not be I mean, I don't I mean, I think that,
I mean, other than her general strategy of saying nothing and ignoring everything, which I think has been a basically
28 minutessavvy strategy, I mean, she's never given any indication that she has a, a deeper strategic sense of how to deal with,
with, with, with the press and with potential scandals and with, and with social media.
Well, she's just dealt with it by becoming even more unknowing. That is a new of use, this word about her.
And it's a great word to describe her. Unknowable. She seems unknowable. You watched the the the documentary of her, and she remains unknowable.
You have no idea who her friends are.
The only people she talks to are people that are being paid her designer, her stylist, her florist, her event planner. There's nobody around to actually that.
That appears to have any real relationship with her.
And it's very clear when they focus on her meeting the president and they going off to do something together, that they're having a conversation as if they haven't spoken to each other for several days.
And she's like, have you spoken to Barron? And he's like, yes, he's a cute kid. He's a cute kid. As if he doesn't actually have much to do with him.
And then she says he's very smart. He's very smart.
So this is not a couple that, at least according to the documentary that she chose to put out in the world about herself, she's not suggesting this.
Any intimacy between her and her husband. And at the end of the inauguration, the evening of the inauguration,
the one night you think that perhaps a newly elected president might have conjugal relations with his wife,
they very clearly go their own separate ways, as if they've done their duty with each other. And now they're separating. He's going off to eat burgers and watch Fox News.
And she's going, who knows what she's going in. In the. If your strategy is to be unknowable, then,
he, I mean,
it's not exactly a successful step to get out in front of the cameras and then start to announce all kinds of details which which are
which, many or checkable many already seem to be contradicted by by known evidence.
I mean, you have just you have just actually opened the window into asking myriad questions
about who you are, what you've been doing, and what the real story is. Here.
So who do you think if anybody advised her on this strategy? You know,
I mean, it's hard to say that because we don't know what the strategy is for. We don't know, and we don't know what the point of this is.
So it's very hard to say who is advising her in, in any effort to accomplish that, that point or goal.
Well, and she may be looking to a life post-Trump. She's much younger than her husband. She's 55. He's soon to turn 80.
There's a 25 year age gap between them. So she must be thinking, what am I going to do after this first lady gig is up?
Do I want to go and work in fashion? Do I not want to work at all? Do I want to remarry? She doesn't, you know, so she she doesn't want to,
as you say, go down on the Trump ship. If it all ends badly. Yeah. No, I,
I mean, obviously kids can see that, but still, why would you come out and dare the world to challenge the world to link you to Epstein?
Well, and especially to say that the pictures aren't true and the pictures are I, because there are plenty of pictures that are previous to I never been heard of,
which show, you know, very clearly Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Glenn Maxwell.
And we saw the letters to and from Guillen and Melania in the Epstein files. Guillen calling her sweet pea.
Chapter 8: Unknowable Melania: PR Tactics and Public Persona
You know, Melania saying, great story about Jeffrey Epstein in You magazine. Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I mean, certainly I mean, and, you know, it's I mean, there's a soft that she's trying to she's trying to I mean, this is spin this, but spin this in a, you know, in a gauzy way.
Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time. Since overlapping in social circles in common in New York City, in Palm Beach.
Now, that doesn't sound like she. At the same time she's saying, I didn't know Epstein at all. But that certainly doesn't sound like you didn't know Epstein at all,
right?
It sounds like I'm trying to I I'm I'm, you know, I'm I'm trying to do a dance to distance myself from in fact, knowing Epstein, and we know that Donald and,
Jeffrey Epstein were friends and fell out somewhere between 2000 and 4, 2005, which was in 2004.
They started to I mean, that was the the, you know, the moment, the fight over real estate.
And so Melania had been dating Donald Trump for at least four years at that point.
So Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump and Melania overlapped in their relationship history for at least four years.
Right. Six 1998, they they met and she says they met in 1998,
although there's a clip of, of a show says, I've looked at all of his stuff because of this case in which she says, she says they met in 1997.
Again, all of this, this is this this is all a murky area.
And the only thing that she has accomplished by this statement, it seems to me, is to, is to throw it up,
throw it out there and have people pin it down. It's really strange.
Well, I guess we'll see over the next 2 or 3 weeks if anything comes out.
But let's, let's, let's think of this in also in, in broader terms, the terms that things are going dramatically wrong for Donald Trump at this at this point,
and they thing and there there could be parallel tracks. They're, they're, they're going wrong for in the war.
They're going wrong from, from the country going wrong in terms of heading into the midterms, elect elections.
It's quite possible that they're going wrong in terms of his marriage or that all of these things become linked as they do with everyone.
When one thing goes wrong, other things goes, goes, goes wrong, and and she is now stepping into the middle of this.
So what she is doing and I think we can safely say this, this she's what she has done is not without meaning.
It means something. It is to some purpose what that purpose might be.
We don't yet know, but it could very well be the personal in and interfacing of the personal and the political.
Have we had a president get divorced in the white House? I don't think we have halfway.
Well, we we, we can safely say not in the modern, in the,
in the modern era, all presidents and first ladies have endeavored to appear as though they have happy and traditional marriages.
What a pressure for any couple justify is under that absolutely appalling,
microscope. But and then and again and I think this is, this is really important, I think this is going to be a theme that we're going to see more of.
She is trying to distance herself. She is trying to build a separate business.
She is trying to to come out of this experience,
the experience of being the first lady ahead of the game instead of behind the game, which with Donald Trump is always possible. Okay.
Well, Michael obviously Will will be paying close attention and will be doing exactly the thing that I think the first lady didn't want anybody to do, which is pay much more attention to this matter.
And we will look forward to hearing an update from your case. You said you thought there might be an answer. Well, that is I mean, that is the other thing to do to,
that is obviously I'm thinking about, but I think it's also very possible that she is thinking about it.
There's going to be a decision from a federal judge.
And one of the things that that that that judge may be allowed to go forward is discovery about exactly where she lives.
So and that will be she doesn't live in Florida. She doesn't live in Washington. She lives in New York City.
Chapter 9: Post-Trump Futures and the Epstein Timeline Revisited
And, and that alone could be a big problem for her.
Okay, Michael, we will be back on Tuesday with another episode of Inside Trump's Head. I think a lot of people will be very glad to have the update on the case.
As you say, 25,000 people have contributed to it from small amounts, from $5 up to, I'm sure, much larger.
Not to. Yeah. To, there's some hundred dollars, but it's really in small amounts.
Well, I think a lot of people are fed up with the first couple and don't want them telling us what we can and can't say.
Okay. If you haven't, please subscribe to the Daily Beast podcast.
Wherever you get your podcast, just press the subscription button. So the good news is we have so many beast tier members now.
There are too many names to read out and we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team Devin, Roger Reno, Ryan Murray,
Rachel Parsa, Heather Pizarro, Neil Rosen house.