Jeffrey Epstein & JPMorgan: How the Largest U.S. Bank Enabled the Sexual Predator’s Crimes
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow
September 09, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/9/9/e ... transcript
"How JPMorgan Enabled the Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein"
"Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful"
Amid growing pressure for the Trump administration to release the full Jeffrey Epstein files, a New York Times investigation reveals how the country’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase, enabled Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation and profited from its ties to him. The exposé is based on more than 13,000 pages of legal and financial records. The Times reports JPMorgan processed more than 4,700 transactions for Epstein totaling more than $1.1 billion, including payments to some of the women who were sexually trafficked. The bank “arranged for Epstein to be able to pay those victims, both in the U.S. and in Eastern European countries and in Russia,” says David Enrich, deputy investigations editor for The New York Times. Epstein “operated in large part because he had unfettered access to the global financial system. And for many years, it was JPMorgan that was providing him with that access.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
The House Oversight Committee has released more documents from the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including a birthday book given to him by friends. The book includes a sexually suggestive note and sketch of a naked woman that appears to be signed by Donald Trump. In the text, Trump says, “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.” It concludes with Trump writing “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,” unquote. The White House has denied the letter was created by Trump, but The New York Times has revealed Trump’s signature is very similar to his signature on other documents from that period, a simple “Donald.”
A second page of the birthday book featured an image of Epstein holding a large check. Democratic lawmakers said the photo showed Epstein and a longtime Mar-a-Lago member joking about selling a, quote, “fully depreciated,” quote-unquote, woman to Donald Trump for $22,500.
As pressure grows on the Trump administration to release the full Epstein files, we turn to look at how the country’s largest bank, JPMorgan, enabled Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation and profited from its ties to Jeffrey Epstein. On Monday, The New York Times published a major exposé on JPMorgan’s ties to Epstein. It’s based on more than 13,000 pages of legal and financial records. According to the Times, JPMorgan processed more than 4,700 transactions, totaling more than $1.1 billion, for Epstein, including payments to some of the women who were sexually trafficked.
We’re joined now by David Enrich, deputy investigations editor for The New York Times. He co-wrote the piece headlined “How JPMorgan Enabled the Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.”
David, welcome back to Democracy Now! Why don’t you start with that headline: How did JPMorgan enable the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein?
DAVID ENRICH: Well, for many years, JPMorgan was basically the primary bank serving Epstein, and in the course of the 15 years that it worked with him, it did a number of things. And first and foremost, it set up accounts for not only him and his companies, but also quite a few of his victims who had been trafficked into the United States, and it arranged for Epstein to be able to pay those victims, both in the U.S. and in Eastern European countries and in Russia. The bank lent him money that was associated for projects associated with sex trafficking. It, in some cases, just paid him cash, millions of dollars of it, over the years to thank him for some of the services he had provided the bank.
And over and over again, when people within the bank raised red flags about how much cash Epstein was withdrawing and some of the suspicious wire transfers he was doing, people higher up at the bank essentially looked the other way, because they wanted to keep this guy as a lucrative client. And so, basically, Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation, we now know, operated in large part because he had unfettered access to the global financial system. And for many years, it was JPMorgan that was providing him with that access.
AMY GOODMAN: Take us through the timeline. And, David Enrich, what about other banks? Did Jeffrey Epstein try to bank with other banks? I mean, this perhaps the most prestigious, the largest bank in the United States, but wasn’t he turned away by bank after bank?
DAVID ENRICH: Well, there’s some question about who turned him away and when. And certainly, we know that in 2013, after JPMorgan, after years of internal pressure, finally parted ways with him, he went right on to another bank, the German lender Deutsche Bank, which is — you may recall, is the bank that was willing to do business with Donald Trump, among others.
But the history with JPMorgan and Jeffrey Epstein starts in the late 1990s, and Epstein, at the time, was a very wealthy but kind of mysterious guy. The bank itself, in documents that we’ve reviewed, didn’t have a whole lot of information on where his money was coming from, who he was working for or why he was important. All they knew is that he was parking a ton of money at the bank and generating millions of dollars a year in fees.
And over the ensuing years, Epstein’s role inside the bank became more and more important, and it involved not just doing business that made money for the bank, but he introduced the bank to a lot of potential clients, to government leaders, like Benjamin Netanyahu, and advised them on strategic initiatives and provided them kind of with troubleshooting advice along the way. So he was a really indispensable part of the bank and an indispensable partner, I think, to some of the bank’s very highest-ranking executives.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, if you could talk about the significance of this? In fact, it was two Israeli prime ministers, Benjamin Netanyahu —
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — that he brought to the bank, as well as Ehud Barak.
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah. So, he — and there’s a laundry list of rich, powerful, famous people that Epstein counted among his acquaintances, and he was extremely adept at using those connections to ingratiate himself with lots of other people at institutions. JPMorgan was very eager to do business with him and to accept the introductions he was offering. And the relationship that Epstein had with JPMorgan was really important to Epstein, because it hooked him into the global financial system and provided him with money. But I think, to an equal degree, it also imbued him with legitimacy and credibility that was really important to him, especially after he was, first in 2006, indicted and arrested on sex-trafficking-related charges, and then, in 2008, pleaded guilty and was then incarcerated on similar charges.
And all the while, JPMorgan continued to bank him, and for years afterwards, as well. And that was even though people within the bank, including at a pretty senior level, were aware that — what Epstein had been accused of, what he had pled guilty to, and were concerned that there was a lot more going on here that hadn’t even become public, and yet they decided, institutionally, that the right thing to do was to continue working with him, primarily because he was making them a ton of money.
AMY GOODMAN: He also brought to the bank Sergey Brin — right? — the founder of Google, who banked with them to the tune of something like $4 billion.
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah. And again, there’s a long list of people that he made introductions to. And I think the bank would say that, you know, they are one of the biggest, most prestigious banks in the world, and they don’t have any trouble finding clients and — on their own or talking to government leaders on their own. But there is no dispute that Epstein, at least with one of the very highest-ranking executives of the bank, was someone who the bank was turning to over and over again for advice, for counseling, for introductions and, most of all, for financial services.
And so, this is a long symbiotic relationship, and I think that the fact that this full story hasn’t been told until now is really emblematic, in some ways, of how many mysteries continue to swirl around Jeffrey Epstein and his money, and how much more digging there is to do by everyone, from journalists to congressional investigators, who are, I think, belatedly getting really serious about this.
AMY GOODMAN: So, David Enrich, if you can explain — I don’t know if everyone knows how banks work — what does it mean when there are red flags? What were those red flags? What was JPMorgan ignoring? When do they have to report to the Feds about these red flags? And then we’ll talk about Jes Staley and Jamie Dimon.
DAVID ENRICH: Sure. So, I mean, there was a range of red flags. The most obvious of them, internally at the bank, was that Epstein, he had hundreds of millions of dollars parked at the bank, but he was taking out so much money in cash on a regular basis that it was a real warning sign. And banks are kind of trained to be on the lookout for people that are regularly withdrawing huge sums of cash. And by huge sums, I mean tens of thousands of dollars virtually every month. And this drew attention within the bank, and yet, when it got escalated to higher-ups, people looked the other way. And the reason it draws attention is that cash is a common currency for criminals. And sure enough, what we now know is that virtually almost identical amounts of — Epstein was taking out amounts of money that were almost identical to what we now know he was paying to young women and girls as part of his sex-trafficking operation.
Another big red flag was that he was wiring money in — there are patterns of him wiring money to all over the world, including to banks and individuals in Eastern Europe and Russia that we now know — in fact, we knew, to some degree, at the time, as well — that this was part of what appeared to be a sex-trafficking operation. And these are things that anti-money laundering experts and compliance officials within JPMorgan and within the banking industry, in general — these are pretty clear, well-established red flags for possible criminal behavior. And sure enough, the bank’s teams of anti-money laundering experts and compliance officials recognized this more or less in real time, and in some cases reported it to the government, but did not take it seriously internally. And, you know, they had discussions about: “These are suspicious things that are happening. We don’t know exactly what he’s using this money for, but these are red flags.”
And in many cases with other bank customers, we can see that when a bank customer gets accused of wrongdoing or is engaged in potentially suspicious transactions, banks like JPMorgan will very quickly get rid of them as clients, because it is not worth taking the legal or reputational risk to keep doing business with them. And again, that did not happen in JPMorgan’s case. And this was not just like one isolated incident. This was happening over and over again, over a period of many years, where people inside the bank repeatedly rang the alarm bells and then were just overridden by people higher up the food chain.
AMY GOODMAN: Compare what happened to Jeffrey Epstein to Wesley Snipes.
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, so, Wesley Snipes, the actor, was another JPMorgan client in 2006, and he was accused of tax fraud by the federal government. And almost instantaneously, the bank — and he had not been convicted of those charges; he had not admitted to those charges. Almost instantly, the bank kicked him out as a client. And this was almost exactly the same time that Epstein was initially indicted and arrested for alleged sex crimes, and, you know, which is arguably more serious than a tax fraud allegation. And instead of swiftly kicking Epstein out of the bank the way they had done with Wesley Snipes, they had a fairly robust internal discussion that culminated in the bank deciding to keep him as a client, with basically no strings attached.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to David Enrich, deputy investigations editor for The New York Times. The major new exposé, he co-authored, headlined “How JPMorgan Enabled the Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein: A Times investigation found … America’s leading bank spent years supporting — and profiting from — the notorious sex offender, ignoring red flags, suspicious activity and concerned executives,” which takes us to the higher-ups. If we can — if you can tell us about Jes Staley, once the leading contender to succeed Jamie Dimon as chief executive of JPMorgan, how he had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein at the bank, outside the bank, would later become head of Barclays in Britain? Just take us through that relationship, and then his relationship and what he discussed with Jamie Dimon.
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, and so, the relationship between Jes Staley and Jeffrey Epstein was long and multifaceted and quite intimate, I think. And Staley was basically a lifetime JPMorgan employee until 2013, and he was the person who, back in the late '90s, early 2000s, developed a very close relationship with Epstein, who at the time was this kind of up-and-coming client at the bank. And the relationship started off, I think, just purely in financial terms. Staley was trying to get to get to know Epstein because he was an important client of the bank and could make important introductions to other potential clients for the bank. But over the years, it evolved into something much more than a traditional client relationship, I would say. And Staley became, I think, a close friend of Epstein. When Epstein was incarcerated in Florida in 2008 and 2009, Staley went to visit him. Staley also visited a number of Epstein's properties, including when Epstein was not even there. And on at least one occasion, we know that Staley ended up having sex with a young woman whom he had met at Epstein’s townhouse, and who later alleged that Epstein had basically sex-trafficked her.
And all the while, inside JPMorgan, when these concerns would arise about, you know, the — whether Jeffrey Epstein is involved in crimes and whether the bank is involved in facilitating or enabling those crimes, over and over we see Jes Staley — in some cases, joined with other executives, but always Jes Staley — going to bat for Epstein, trying to kind of damp down these internal concerns and to insist that this is someone the bank needed to continue doing business with. And he went to bat for Epstein over and over again, and it ranged from kind of interacting with low-level compliance officers to really senior people within the bank, like the general counsel of the bank, who had grave concerns about Epstein and was persuaded, ultimately, to not really take a stand and insist that he be fired from the bank.
And I think one of the ongoing mysteries here is where JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, was in all of this. And Dimon is — he’s been CEO for a long time. He is someone who likes to boast about his attention to detail. He is known as a bit of a micromanager, who is really, like, on his subordinates, trying to know everything that’s going on. And in this case, Dimon claims that he simply — he knew nothing about Epstein. He didn’t even realize Epstein was a client, he says, until after Epstein was arrested and jailed in 2019. And, you know, that is, first of all, a little bit hard to square with Dimon’s repeated insistences that he knows everything that’s going on inside the bank, but also with the fact that Jes Staley, under oath, has said that Dimon — that he talked to Dimon on a number of occasions about Epstein’s status as a client. And we also reviewed internal emails from the bank that appear to show other employees of the bank mentioning the fact that Jamie Dimon is going to be involved in some of the decision-making around whether to keep Epstein as a client.
And I don’t know what the truth is here, but there is — it seems like there’s kind of a binary choice: Either Jamie Dimon knew about Jeffrey Epstein as a client and has been lying about that under oath and in other forms, or Jamie Dimon didn’t know Jeffrey Epstein was a client, and somehow was out of the loop on this really important client and on an issue that was really sowing great divisions among some of his top lieutenants at the bank. And, you know, we talked to David Boies, the lawyer who is — who has sued JPMorgan, among others, for its role in the Epstein saga, and he described both of those options. He said that neither of those options is good, from Dimon’s standpoint. And, you know, I’m inclined to agree with that analysis.
AMY GOODMAN: And what happened to Staley? He went on to head Barclays. And what happened there, in Britain?
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, so, he — after leaving JPMorgan, he became the CEO of Barclays. And he lasted in that role for several years, until Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and charged and then committed suicide in jail. And a lot of questions began to emerge about what Staley had done for Epstein, both at JPMorgan and at Barclays. And an investigation later determined that Staley had been really dishonest with Barclays about the nature and duration of his relationship with Epstein, and so he was fired by the bank and later banned by British regulators from having a senior role in the U.K. financial services industry, so — and I think his career is pretty well done at this point. But, you know, there have — aside from losing his job, my understanding is that he walked away with a huge fortune, that he derived, in part, over the years because he was proven such an effective advocate and such an effective manager of the Epstein relationship at JPMorgan.
AMY GOODMAN: “The fallout [for] JPMorgan,” you write in The New York Times, “has been limited. In 2023, it paid $290 million to settle a lawsuit brought by roughly 200 of Epstein’s victims and an additional $75 million to resolve related litigation brought by the US Virgin Islands, where many of Epstein’s crimes took place.” Right? He owned two islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, that’s right. And that sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money in normal terms, until you realize how much money JPMorgan earns. And in 2023, the year that they paid this roughly $300 million in settlement, they made profits of $50 billion, with a “b.” So, I mean, the payments they made to settle these lawsuits amounted to less than 1% of their profits that year. And so, I think one of the things that we, my colleagues and I, have heard over and over as we’ve been reporting this story is that punishments like this do not — or, they are unlikely to have a major deterrent effect. And what is really to stop a scandal like this from happening in the future? And I don’t know what the answer to that is, but, certainly, having to pay less than 1% of your annual profits as a penalty does not seem likely to have a huge impact on the behavior of bankers or corporate executives in the future.
AMY GOODMAN: And let me ask you, this latest news headline — and you may not be able to respond — the request by the Justice Department to a federal judge to reject NBC News’s request to unseal the names of two Epstein associates who both received wire payments of, what, something like $100,000 and $200,000 from Epstein back in 2018. As part of his nonprosecution plea deal with federal prosecutors in Florida, Epstein helped ensure that his associates would not be prosecuted. Have you reported on this, or can you comment?
DAVID ENRICH: Yeah, I mean, I’ve done some reporting on it. And again, there are a lot of unanswered questions here. We do not know the associates to whom Epstein was paying these six-figure sums in 2018. We do know — and he had left JPMorgan at that point and had become a customer of Deutsche Bank by then. So, this is not a — as far as I know, it’s not a JPMorgan issue. And I have no idea who those associates were. I mean, they could be his lawyers. They could be the guy who — the beneficiaries of his will. It could be women who he sex-trafficked.
All I know, looking at this, is that it is remarkable to me that the Trump administration, after rising to power in part based on his assurances that it would do everything in its power to provide transparency about the Epstein investigations, is again doing the exact opposite of that and fighting to keep stuff secret. And again, I don’t know. Maybe there is a good explanation for why, in these particular cases, they are trying to keep this secret, but certainly it appears to be part of a pattern in which Trump and his allies are doing everything in their power to keep this stuff hidden from public view.
AMY GOODMAN: David Enrich, I want to thank you for being with us, deputy investigations editor for The New York Times. We’ll link to your piece, “How JPMorgan Enabled the Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.”
Coming up, ICE has launched a major operation in Chicago, days after Trump posted a message declaring “Chipocalypse Now” — a reference to the Vietnam War film Apocalypse Now. We’ll speak with the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Viet Thanh Nguyen. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Vietnamese musician Mai Khôi performing at Joe’s Pub in 2020.
Youtube videos
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:23 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:03 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Tue Sep 09, 2025 11:51 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Wed Sep 10, 2025 7:41 am
Trump's Pervy Page In Epstein's Birthday Book | Sotomayor's Blistering Dissent To SCOTUS ICE Ruling
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Sep 9
Trump's GOP allies are trying to deny the existence of the Epstein birthday note even after it was released by the House Oversight Committee, and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not mince words in her dissent to the court's decision to allow ICE to target all Latinos regardless of citizenship status.
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Sep 9
Trump's GOP allies are trying to deny the existence of the Epstein birthday note even after it was released by the House Oversight Committee, and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not mince words in her dissent to the court's decision to allow ICE to target all Latinos regardless of citizenship status.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Wed Sep 10, 2025 8:52 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Wed Sep 10, 2025 8:56 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Thu Sep 11, 2025 12:12 am
BREAKING NEWS: Jim Jordan, Raskin, And Have Fiery Clash Over Epstein Files Amendment
Forbes Breaking News
Sep 10, 2025
A Democratic amendment on the Epstein Files leads to a clash between Democrats and Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
Transcript
Uh Mr. Hang on second report and then we'll then we'll go.
Amendment to the amendment and the objection. The amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to explain the
amendment. Thank you kindly. My amendment is simple. Mr. Chairman, uh it would not let this bill take effect until all the
Epstein files are released. My uh Republican colleagues have put forward multiple bills this markup that reflect
uh what they say is a renewed focus on protecting kids against trafficking and exploitation. Uh well, this is the test.
Uh if our colleagues are serious, and I believe they are, then they should be happy and eager to join me in supporting
this amendment. The text before you is the same text as Mr. Massie and Mr. Con's discharge petition that every
Democrat and four of our Republican colleagues uh have joined in. In just the last 48 hours, we've seen how
important it is that the public actually get to see the Epstein files for ourselves. The oversight committee has
received Mr. Epstein's entire 50th birthday book courtesy of Mr. Epstein's estate. This includes the now infamous
and slightly juvenile birthday note and drawing that President Trump denied
existed at all. In fact, he sued the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion for
reporting that Trump had written uh this suggestive and lascivious uh note with
the drawing of uh a uh well perhaps an underage girl's body. hard to say
exactly what it is, but um in that note, he draws an outline of a woman's naked
body, a young woman's naked body, uh wishes Jeffrey Epstein happy birthday, and then ends it with, "May every day be
another beautiful secret." Well, this is now public and it clearly includes the
president's signature. He's disputing that it's his signature, but it looks exactly like about a hundred other
signatures that we have from the president, including on federal legislation. So, let's not allow this to
be another beautiful secret before uh uh
before we proceed. Let's open up open up the Epstein files. The book also
includes some disturbing neverbeforeseen images that appear to depict Epstein
grooming young girls and includes a never-before-seen document where Epstein and a longtime Mara Lago member are
joking about selling a woman, a quote fully depreciated woman to Donald Trump
for $22,500. You can see it yourself if you have any
doubt about it. Look, it's time for all of us to decide. Democrats and Republicans alike. The country is
unified around this. Are we going to be on the side of transparency and
accountability? Or are we going to be on the side of the human traffickers and those who
collaborate with them and collude with them and protect them? There is a stench of corruption, predation, and
exploitation that now hangs over this whole matter. And we are seeing one of the greatest coverups of our century
unfolding in real time. Which side are we on? And that coverup, of course, starts with Alex Aosta, Donald Trump's
Secretary of Labor, who gave Epstein a ridiculous plea bargain, ending the
federal uh case against him for no apparent reason other than his wealth,
his connections, his political power. There was a multi-count federal
indictment ready to go. and Alex Acasta, who was the US attorney in the Southern
District of Florida, gave it up and instead traded it for one count of
solicitation. It didn't even mention child sex trafficking. One count of solicitation under Florida state law. He
got the sweetest of sweetheart contracts. He was free in the daytime
for several months and then he went and spent the night in jail. And allegedly
he continued his criminal activities, grooming and procuring girls and having
sex with underage girls and young women. So, uh, this is about corruption. This
is about the wealthy and powerful being able to manipulate the American justice system to get away with their crimes
against kids. Let's release the file to the public. Vote yes on this, everybody.
Let's make some history today. Let's make some history that we are going to see that the Epstein files actually come
to light. That's what America wants. The most liberal people, the most conservative people, people across the
spectrum want to see the files. We don't want dribbs and drabs of the files they
want us to see. We want the files they don't want us to see. We want the entire
the entire case file that they've got. Let's clear the air. Let's get the truth and the facts out there. Let's put an
end to this corruption and cover up. Let's do it on a bipartisan basis. I hope my colleagues will support the
amendment and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from uh
California. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? I do, Mr. Chairman.
Uh the gentleman's amendment would introduce
Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I I I I fail to see recognized to to speak to his objection.
I I I fail to see how the gentleman's obvious case of Trump derangement syndrome has anything to do with this
bill affecting immigration law. It's therefore not germanine. I also question whether the gentleman's vicious attack
on the president's character is in violation of the House rules, but I I'll stick with the Gerine's question for
now. Uh speak the gentleman wish to speak on uh
I certainly do. Um I don't know what deranged Trump syndrome is because I've not met with his psychiatrist. So, I
don't know what you're referring to with deranged Trump syndrome. In any event, you haven't contradicted a single fact
that I put forward. Uh, it seems like you want to try to impinge on my free speech rights or my speech and debate
rights. That's a bizarre uh turn of events given that we've just been talking about the First Amendment
and freedom of speech. But in any event, this is completely material and relevant. It's about the Acasta deal is
about providing immunity from federal prosecution to Epstein and all of his
unnamed co-conspirators. They were protected by that sweetheart deal. And this is about child sex
trafficking and the legislation is all about the protection of children. I don't see how it could be more aligned
with the legislation here. Look, if you oppose it, if you don't want the file coming out, at least have the backbone and the courage to stand up and say you
don't want it coming out, but don't say this isn't relevant to the protection of children. Give me a break. I yield back,
Mr. Chairman. I would just point out that the uh oversight committee is conducting an investigation and in fact, it's the
oversight committee that subpoenaed the very document the chairman referenced in his statement. So, they are doing their
work there and they will be deposing the gentleman he recognized in his comments, Mr. Aosta. And I think in 2 weeks that
deposition is slated to happen. The gentleman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental
purposes test. Therefore, it is not gerine and is out of order. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to appeal that. And the reason is, you know, Epstein
used a ring of associates to rotate the women and girls in and out of sexual servitude and many of them came from
outside of the country. So, this is all about human trafficking. They ran he ran an international sex ring. Now you want
to say it's not relevant to the legislation which deals with the protection of children. I do appealing
the rules. Uh I I move to table the appeal. The the gentleman has moved to table the appeal.
Mr. Chairman, all those in favor I have a point of order. Gentle lady shall say gentle lady can state a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, could you give the rationale for why this is not germanine? Because I don't I simply don't
understand it. I mean, the fact that the oversight committee is doing something does not negate our ability to do
something. If you want to vote against the amendment, I suppose you could do that. But why is it not gerine? This is
about this bill is about unaccompanied minors. We know that there is trafficking. It is about trafficking. It
is about sexual abuse. It is about all the things that the Epstein the release of the Epstein documents are also about.
So what is the rationale for ruling it not gerine versus you saying that you
don't support the amendment which No, I didn't say I didn't say I didn't support the amendment. I said that it's not germanine. It doesn't fit on the
rules. An amendment may make the effectiveness of a bill subject to a condition if that condition is related to the provisions of the bill. An
amendment delay is related to provisions of the bill. Does not satisfy the rules and that is why it's not germanine.
So there's no rational. There's been appeal of the ruling of the chair. There's been a motion to table that. The question is on tableabling of
the motion. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it.
Like a recorded vote. Mr. Recorded vote being requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan. Uh, yes.
Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcccleintoch.
Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie? No. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy,
Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes I, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden,
Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Moore, Mr.
Kylie, Miss Hagman, Miss Hagman votes yes. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes yes. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry,
Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Not
Mr. Not votes yes Mr. Harris yes Mr. Harris votes yes Mr. Ander Mr.
Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes I Mr. Gil Mr. Bombgardner
I Mr. Bombgardner votes I Mr. Rascin no Mr. Raskin votes no Mr. Nadler
Mr. Nadler votes no Miss Lofrren Mr. Cohen
Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson votes no Mr. Swallwell Mr. Lou
Miss Gyipol Miss Gyipol votes no Mr. Kaha Mr. Ka votes no Miss Scandlin
Mr. Negus Miss Mcbath Miss McBth votes no Miss
Ross Miss Ballant. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia Mr.
Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove. Miss Camagerd votes no. Mr. Mosquitz.
Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett.
Mr. Iso votes yes. Gooden. Gentleman from Texas. Mr. Gooden votes yes.
Click report.
Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 12 nos. Uh, the amendment is tabled. Who seeks recognition? Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to strike the
last word. Gentleman's recognized.
[Moskowitz] Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. uh you know just following up on a little bit
of what the ranking member was discussing. There was a significant
event this week in which this committee has jurisdiction over. The
speaker of the house, the third highest ranking US official, third in line to be
the president, looked into the TV cameras and told us that the current
president of the United States was an FBI informant. I consider that to be gigantic news,
and I'm just curious, have we reached out to the FBI to Kash Patel to confirm
whether the president was at any time an FBI informant? I only say that because the speaker of the house obviously gets
significant briefings. He gets briefings that we do not get as regular members. And so I I think this is
something that we need to hear definitively before Kash Patel comes, we should clear up maybe, we should
send a letter to him, to find out if the president was an informant. And if he was an informant, is that because he was
working with the FBI after he was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein? Did he
turn because he got caught with Jeffrey Epstein? You know, when you're an FBI informant, there are lots of questions
about how you became an FBI informant and then how long was he an FBI informant? When did his service to the
FBI stop, you know, being a member of the deep state? When when did he stop
doing that? I mean, look, any if if a regular member had said this, I would discount it. But the speaker of the
house is the one who said it. And then he said afterwards, well, I may have misspoke. What was his
misspeak? Instead of informant, did he mean agent? I mean, what is the misspeak for informant? I mean, I don't know
another word that we use when we're describing an FBI agent or FBI informant
or undercover. I mean, what was the misspeak here? And if he was lying then,
is he lying now? I'm just confused. Perhaps maybe the speaker should come to our committee and tell us what he meant
when he said that. It's just it's -- I'm still speaking. I'm still
speaking.
Is there an a bill or an amendment on the floor?
I have strike the last word. I'm allowed to finish my --
gentleman. Gentlemen from Florida has a time. He's speaking as I think he's speaking about the bill. Well, he's not really
speaking about the bill, but he's recognized to speak about the bill.
Well, he's just been interrupted for about 30 seconds. I'd ask that it be
added back onto his -- Can we move to restore his time? That was a completely improper interjection.
Time to stop. We'll give him plenty of
time. I'm usually good about that.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence. And I'm only bringing it up again because this
committee is the committee of jurisdiction over the FBI. And I don't think in the history of this country
we've had a speaker of the house say the president was an FBI informant. I mean
that is a dual role if I ever heard one. And so I just think we have
questions, Mr. Chairman, and on a bipartisan basis maybe the answer is no. He wasn't an FBI informant. And that's
fine if the answer is no. I just think we need to hear from the FBI. The
speaker has confused the American people whether Trump was working with the FBI against Jeffrey Epstein because he had
information about Jeffrey Epstein, because he was there for a long period of time, and then got turned maybe by
the FBI? I mean, did Trump ever go undercover?
I mean, these are questions
that the speaker has raised. By the way, a president going undercover would be interesting, you know, but these are
questions that he's raised. That is not a misspeak. There is not another adjective or verb for FBI informant,
right? I understand the president kicked him out of his club. That doesn't make you an FBI informant. So, I think we
need to get to the bottom of that.
Will the gentleman yield?
I will.
Just to add on to that,
in 2002 the president said that he was aware that Jeffrey Epstein likes girls
on the younger side. In 2003 he provided a birthday card
with the shape of a woman and his clear signature for anyone who actually
looks at it, and references a secret. In 2004,
the FBI initiated an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
I would like for this committee to request from the FBI the opening
document, the report of investigation that would have initiated the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in
2004. Because I think we should know how that investigation began. We know that
President Trump had a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein around that time. Was it
President Trump who provided the FBI with the information that caused this
investigation to be opened? This committee deserves to know that. I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Maryland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
follow up on the excellent points made by the the gentleman from Florida and
from New York. Let's try this again. I've got an amendment at the desk.
Gentleman from California reserves a point of order. Amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to HR 4371 offered by Mr. Raskin. Without objection, the amendment be
considered as read.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to explain the amendment
Mr. Chairman, thank you,
ensures the release of all files associated with Alex Acosta in the Epstein affair. The gentleman from
New York focuses our attention on the fact that this was being investigated back in 2004, five, and six. And in May
of 2007, an assistant US attorney working for DOJ
prepared a draft, a 60 criminal count indictment against Epstein. 60 criminal
counts for statutory rape, rape, solicitation, human trafficking,
conspiracy, and so on. They had a very comprehensive and complex understanding
of what Epstein was doing, how he was funding it, who was involved in it. And
just two months later, Epstein's attorneys met with the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and that
US attorney would later become famous as Donald Trump's secretary of labor. But at that point, he was leading the
investigation, and he offered to end the investigation, and throw away those 60
federal charges completely if Epstein would plead guilty to the state charge
of solicitation. Now, that has got to be the sweetest, coziest, sweetheart deal ever made by a
federal prosecutor. They've got this guy dead to rights on 60 criminal counts of
running a comprehensive child sex trafficking conspiracy, an international
one for those of you who are sticklers for materiality and relevance. An
international child sex trafficking ring. And they gave it all away. They
accepted a short jail stay for him. So what
did he get to do down there in Florida? Well, he plead guilty, and he got 18 months in a minimum security facility.
He was allowed to leave for 12 hours a day to work at a foundation he
founded ,and apparently continued doing exactly what he was doing before.And I don't want to be too graphic and lurid because there might be kids watching. But he was doing precisely the kinds
of things that we're talking about in terms of the protection of children. He was violating children, violating young
women. And then he would go and spend the night in jail. And in the meantime, he was able to bargain immunity for all
of these other people who were working for him.
Would the gentleman yield?
Yes, by all means.
In other words,
while he was doing all the sexual predation, the government was providing room and board and meals, and making it
cheap for him to do so. Well, that's not a bad way of looking at it. Especially because apparently it
was a very comfy jail cell they set up for him. Now, I'm sure he would have preferred to be back in one of his mansions, which were basically
sexual dungeons for the young women and girls that got swept up in his sex
conspiracy, which was something that the vast majority of Americans deplore and
abhor and want to get to the bottom of and want to know the truth about. But anyway, he spent those nights and then
they wiped the slate clean for him to continue to go on and do it again and
again and again. This is a guy who should have immediately been prosecuted, then convicted and sent to prison
for the rest of his life for what he had done.
Now, Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted
and convicted as a felony sex offender, and sentenced to 20 years in jail. She just got transferred out of
her prison to a Club Fed where sex offenders are not normally allowed.
Felony sex offenders are not normally allowed there. But after she spoke to
the president's former criminal defense attorney, who's now working in the Department of Justice, and he liked what
he heard, she was immediately transferred over to this very comfy
arrangement in Texas. She skipped over months and months of the normal process
where you have to prove there's some compelling reason to be transferred from one facility to another under the rules
of the Bureau of Prisons. She bypassed all of that and she got sent over to this other prison because Mr.
Blanche liked what he heard when he went over to talk to her. Come on! We're the
Congress of the United States. The framers of the Constitution thought that we would stand up for integrity, and we
would stand up for our interests, and not be servile partisan sycophants to the
president of the United States. So, let us all show some backbone today.
Let's say we don't move forward on this legislation until the Epstein Acosta
file is released. Let's vote for that everybody. And if you're serious about getting the truth of it, you will
support my amendment. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman yields back. I would just point out that the director of
the FBI will be sitting at that table one week from today, and all the questions and concerns Mr. Moskowitz
raised, he can ask the director. You can ask him right to his face and get the
answers and then with regards to Mr. Acosta, he will be being deposed on the 19th of this month.
So in nine days he he'll set for a deposition where he will be under oath, and Mr. Garcia, who has the job that Mr.
Raskin used to have, can ask him all the questions, make all the points that the ranking member of the judiciary
committee just raised.
But Mr. Mr. Chairman, you would agree that the question gentleman from California is recognition be more meaningful if we actually had
the file. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. Gentleman insist on his point of order. Does the sponsor of the amendment
just I'll recognize the gentleman. Thank you. I I I'm I'm reminded of Churchill's definition of a fanatic, a
man who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. But the subject has
uh nothing to do with immigration law uh which is a subject of this bill. And therefore, the gentleman's amendment
would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us. It violates House Rule 16, clause 7. I
yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does gentleman from Maryland wish to respond? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I suppose I am a
fanatic for child safety. I am a fanatic against child sex trafficking. Yes, I
am. And I will be a fanatic to stand up for the public interest and the vast majority of Americans who want the truth
to come out and don't want to sweep it under the rug. It's my time. It's my time. I'm not yielding to you right now.
I've heard enough from you. Now,
Mr. Epstein's victims included aspiring models from abroad, including South America. He had a whole team working in
France. The gentleman, the gentleman should focus on the point of order. This is a focusing on the point of
order, Mr. Chairman, because I'm talking about the international dimension. Just reminding the gentleman who spoke more
than anyone today here at this this hearing and has said that he's not going to support the bill as the gentleman from California just pointed out. So if
you can say safely order that'll be good. I would love to support the bill if you support the release of the Epstein file
and the Costa file. I mean let's we're forgetting all the information. Uh we're forgetting all that information
out and that's why I've told you about well let's get it out today's deposition and Mr. We've heard a lot of promises about
getting it out. We haven't seen much action. A lot of promises but no action. Today we could take some action.
The gentleman suggests that my amendment is not in order because it's not germanine to the question of
international child trafficking and illegal immigration. Well, Mr. Epste's
victims including aspiring models and girls being taken advantage of from
South American countries and from Europe and France. He used a ring of associates to rotate the women and girls in and out
of sexual servitude in different countries in different places using fraudulent modeling visas to transport
them across state lines and across international borders. He tracked their availability and their proximity using
this database. This is exactly what we're talking about. It's hard to see how it could be more material, more
germane, and more relevant.
It's also the case that air traffic
controllers in the Virgin Islands observed Mr. Epstein leaving his private plane in 2018 with girls who testimony
suggested, were as young as 11 or 12 years old.
In one undated incident detailed in a lawsuit, a 15-year-old girl attempted to
escape and swim off of Mr. Epstein's island after she was forced to engage in sex
acts with Mr. Epstein and some of his guests. The girl was found and held captive on the island after he
confiscated her passport, the lawsuit said. So this goes on and on. I mean,
you want to close your eyes to it, close your eyes to it and say it's not a big deal, but don't say it's not germaine.
You raised the question of the protection of children against international exploitation. This goes
right to the heart of it. And I'm happy to yield to any of my colleagues who haven't had a chance to weigh in yet.
The gentle lady from California. Uh thank you, ranking member. I too will support this amendment. I I was appalled
when I heard you say that they were preparing a 60 criminal count indictment
against Alexander Aosta. You said 60. That's even more than 37. But not against Aosta by Aosta against
Epstein and they suppressed it. Yes. Well, I was thinking 60 and then I was thinking 37 with Trump. 60 is a lot. And
then I started thinking, you know, the underlying bill is actually we would be debating institutionalized
child trafficking and abuse if you actually look at the text of the
underlying bill, which is why I support this amendment. We, the Republican, you
all want us to stop talking about the Epstein files, but we would stop talking about them if you just released them and
popped the balloon. And of course I'm not going to show up and ask Cash Battel these questions.
I'm trying to figure out why all the cover up
because at the end of the day we are talking about a man who orchestrated
the sexual abuse, the sexual assault, the rape of little
girls of girls under the age of 18. In many instances,
everyone is all up and flustered when you're talking about folks being on
a sex registry, about sex traffickers. But now all of a sudden with Jeffrey Epstein and all these people in these
files, they don't want a release. They don't want the truth.
That is why I support this amendment because it also begs the question of who
else is in the files and I want to know.
Well, I thank the gentle lady. I'd like to yield to the gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Gman. Thank you. Um, Mr. Raskin, just as we're
coming into this, it seems so clear and it should be clear to anyone with a law
degree who who has ever participated in litigation that you don't want to go into a deposition to question someone
when you don't have all the facts that are available. So, I wholeheartedly support the idea that we need to have
all of the Epstein files released. Otherwise, the work that this committee is going to do is going to be hamstrung.
It becomes another part of a cover up. You know, why won't they allow these files to be released when it would do
the most good for this committee and this Congress to do its work? I mean, what are they hiding? Um, I support the
amendment and I yield back to my colleague. I I just would say finally, Mr. Sherman. Uh this uh legislation is well intended
in different ways and it's very flawed in other ways. One of the ways in which it's flawed is it says that kids can
only be put with a US citizen or a permanent resident but not other people who have lawful presence in the country
who may be family members. Um don't we want a situation where all kids are taken care of so they don't uh so they
don't end up in a situation like this? they might be released to someone uh who's actually a child sex predator.
This is completely germanine and relevant and I hope everybody supports the amendment. Thanks.
Does uh not satisfy House rule 16 clause 7 and therefore uh the subject matter and fundamental purposes test and
therefore is not gerine and is out of order. I'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair. Gentleman appeals the ruling of the
chair. Gentleman from New Jersey makes a motion to table. All those in favor of tableabling the the motion to appeal say
I. I. Those opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it.
Recorded vote please, Mr. Chair. Recorded vote being uh requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan the table. Yes.
Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr.
Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew,
Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew votes I. Mr. Nells, Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Moore,
Mr. Kylie, Miss Hagaman, Miss Lee,
Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Fry, votes I, Mr. Growthman. Mr.
Growthman votes I. Mr. Not, Mr. Harris,
Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr.
Bombgardner, Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Raskin, no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler,
no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofgrren, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell Mr. Lou
Mr. Lou votes no Miss Jipal Mipal votes no Mr. Kareah Mr. Koa votes no Miss Scandan
no Miss Scandlin votes no Mr. Negus Miss Mcbath Mcbath votes no Miss Ross
miss Balant Miss Balant votes no Mr. Garcia Mr. Garcia votes no Miss Cam
Lagard Camlagger Miss Camlagerv votes no Mr.
Mositz Mr. Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman, Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss
Crockett, Mr. Moore, you're not recorded. Mr.
Moore votes yes. Mr. Isa votes yes.
Miss Lee votes yes.
Mr. Knot Mr. Not votes yes. Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes I.
Mr. Andre, you're not recorded. Mr. Andre votes yes.
Miss Lofrren. Miss Lofrren votes no.
Mr. Chairman, do we have a result under regular order now? Not under regular order.
Miss Ross, you're not recorded. No. Miss Ross votes no.
Forbes Breaking News
Sep 10, 2025
A Democratic amendment on the Epstein Files leads to a clash between Democrats and Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
Transcript
Uh Mr. Hang on second report and then we'll then we'll go.
Amendment to the amendment and the objection. The amendment will be considered as read. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to explain the
amendment. Thank you kindly. My amendment is simple. Mr. Chairman, uh it would not let this bill take effect until all the
Epstein files are released. My uh Republican colleagues have put forward multiple bills this markup that reflect
uh what they say is a renewed focus on protecting kids against trafficking and exploitation. Uh well, this is the test.
Uh if our colleagues are serious, and I believe they are, then they should be happy and eager to join me in supporting
this amendment. The text before you is the same text as Mr. Massie and Mr. Con's discharge petition that every
Democrat and four of our Republican colleagues uh have joined in. In just the last 48 hours, we've seen how
important it is that the public actually get to see the Epstein files for ourselves. The oversight committee has
received Mr. Epstein's entire 50th birthday book courtesy of Mr. Epstein's estate. This includes the now infamous
and slightly juvenile birthday note and drawing that President Trump denied
existed at all. In fact, he sued the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion for
reporting that Trump had written uh this suggestive and lascivious uh note with
the drawing of uh a uh well perhaps an underage girl's body. hard to say
exactly what it is, but um in that note, he draws an outline of a woman's naked
body, a young woman's naked body, uh wishes Jeffrey Epstein happy birthday, and then ends it with, "May every day be
another beautiful secret." Well, this is now public and it clearly includes the
president's signature. He's disputing that it's his signature, but it looks exactly like about a hundred other
signatures that we have from the president, including on federal legislation. So, let's not allow this to
be another beautiful secret before uh uh
before we proceed. Let's open up open up the Epstein files. The book also
includes some disturbing neverbeforeseen images that appear to depict Epstein
grooming young girls and includes a never-before-seen document where Epstein and a longtime Mara Lago member are
joking about selling a woman, a quote fully depreciated woman to Donald Trump
for $22,500. You can see it yourself if you have any
doubt about it. Look, it's time for all of us to decide. Democrats and Republicans alike. The country is
unified around this. Are we going to be on the side of transparency and
accountability? Or are we going to be on the side of the human traffickers and those who
collaborate with them and collude with them and protect them? There is a stench of corruption, predation, and
exploitation that now hangs over this whole matter. And we are seeing one of the greatest coverups of our century
unfolding in real time. Which side are we on? And that coverup, of course, starts with Alex Aosta, Donald Trump's
Secretary of Labor, who gave Epstein a ridiculous plea bargain, ending the
federal uh case against him for no apparent reason other than his wealth,
his connections, his political power. There was a multi-count federal
indictment ready to go. and Alex Acasta, who was the US attorney in the Southern
District of Florida, gave it up and instead traded it for one count of
solicitation. It didn't even mention child sex trafficking. One count of solicitation under Florida state law. He
got the sweetest of sweetheart contracts. He was free in the daytime
for several months and then he went and spent the night in jail. And allegedly
he continued his criminal activities, grooming and procuring girls and having
sex with underage girls and young women. So, uh, this is about corruption. This
is about the wealthy and powerful being able to manipulate the American justice system to get away with their crimes
against kids. Let's release the file to the public. Vote yes on this, everybody.
Let's make some history today. Let's make some history that we are going to see that the Epstein files actually come
to light. That's what America wants. The most liberal people, the most conservative people, people across the
spectrum want to see the files. We don't want dribbs and drabs of the files they
want us to see. We want the files they don't want us to see. We want the entire
the entire case file that they've got. Let's clear the air. Let's get the truth and the facts out there. Let's put an
end to this corruption and cover up. Let's do it on a bipartisan basis. I hope my colleagues will support the
amendment and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from uh
California. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order? I do, Mr. Chairman.
Uh the gentleman's amendment would introduce
Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I I I I fail to see recognized to to speak to his objection.
I I I fail to see how the gentleman's obvious case of Trump derangement syndrome has anything to do with this
bill affecting immigration law. It's therefore not germanine. I also question whether the gentleman's vicious attack
on the president's character is in violation of the House rules, but I I'll stick with the Gerine's question for
now. Uh speak the gentleman wish to speak on uh
I certainly do. Um I don't know what deranged Trump syndrome is because I've not met with his psychiatrist. So, I
don't know what you're referring to with deranged Trump syndrome. In any event, you haven't contradicted a single fact
that I put forward. Uh, it seems like you want to try to impinge on my free speech rights or my speech and debate
rights. That's a bizarre uh turn of events given that we've just been talking about the First Amendment
and freedom of speech. But in any event, this is completely material and relevant. It's about the Acasta deal is
about providing immunity from federal prosecution to Epstein and all of his
unnamed co-conspirators. They were protected by that sweetheart deal. And this is about child sex
trafficking and the legislation is all about the protection of children. I don't see how it could be more aligned
with the legislation here. Look, if you oppose it, if you don't want the file coming out, at least have the backbone and the courage to stand up and say you
don't want it coming out, but don't say this isn't relevant to the protection of children. Give me a break. I yield back,
Mr. Chairman. I would just point out that the uh oversight committee is conducting an investigation and in fact, it's the
oversight committee that subpoenaed the very document the chairman referenced in his statement. So, they are doing their
work there and they will be deposing the gentleman he recognized in his comments, Mr. Aosta. And I think in 2 weeks that
deposition is slated to happen. The gentleman's amendment does not satisfy the subject matter and fundamental
purposes test. Therefore, it is not gerine and is out of order. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to appeal that. And the reason is, you know, Epstein
used a ring of associates to rotate the women and girls in and out of sexual servitude and many of them came from
outside of the country. So, this is all about human trafficking. They ran he ran an international sex ring. Now you want
to say it's not relevant to the legislation which deals with the protection of children. I do appealing
the rules. Uh I I move to table the appeal. The the gentleman has moved to table the appeal.
Mr. Chairman, all those in favor I have a point of order. Gentle lady shall say gentle lady can state a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, could you give the rationale for why this is not germanine? Because I don't I simply don't
understand it. I mean, the fact that the oversight committee is doing something does not negate our ability to do
something. If you want to vote against the amendment, I suppose you could do that. But why is it not gerine? This is
about this bill is about unaccompanied minors. We know that there is trafficking. It is about trafficking. It
is about sexual abuse. It is about all the things that the Epstein the release of the Epstein documents are also about.
So what is the rationale for ruling it not gerine versus you saying that you
don't support the amendment which No, I didn't say I didn't say I didn't support the amendment. I said that it's not germanine. It doesn't fit on the
rules. An amendment may make the effectiveness of a bill subject to a condition if that condition is related to the provisions of the bill. An
amendment delay is related to provisions of the bill. Does not satisfy the rules and that is why it's not germanine.
So there's no rational. There's been appeal of the ruling of the chair. There's been a motion to table that. The question is on tableabling of
the motion. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it.
Like a recorded vote. Mr. Recorded vote being requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan. Uh, yes.
Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa, Mr. Biggs. Mr. Mcccleintoch.
Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie? No. Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Roy,
Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes I, Mr. Klein, Mr. Gooden,
Mr. Vandrew, Mr. Nells, Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Moore, Mr.
Kylie, Miss Hagman, Miss Hagman votes yes. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes yes. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry,
Mr. Fry votes I. Mr. Growthman, Mr. Growthman votes I. Mr. Not
Mr. Not votes yes Mr. Harris yes Mr. Harris votes yes Mr. Ander Mr.
Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes I Mr. Gil Mr. Bombgardner
I Mr. Bombgardner votes I Mr. Rascin no Mr. Raskin votes no Mr. Nadler
Mr. Nadler votes no Miss Lofrren Mr. Cohen
Mr. Johnson Mr. Johnson votes no Mr. Swallwell Mr. Lou
Miss Gyipol Miss Gyipol votes no Mr. Kaha Mr. Ka votes no Miss Scandlin
Mr. Negus Miss Mcbath Miss McBth votes no Miss
Ross Miss Ballant. Miss Balant votes no. Mr. Garcia Mr.
Garcia votes no. Miss Camlager Dove. Miss Camagerd votes no. Mr. Mosquitz.
Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett.
Mr. Iso votes yes. Gooden. Gentleman from Texas. Mr. Gooden votes yes.
Click report.
Mr. Chairman, there are 14 eyes and 12 nos. Uh, the amendment is tabled. Who seeks recognition? Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to strike the
last word. Gentleman's recognized.
[Moskowitz] Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. uh you know just following up on a little bit
of what the ranking member was discussing. There was a significant
event this week in which this committee has jurisdiction over. The
speaker of the house, the third highest ranking US official, third in line to be
the president, looked into the TV cameras and told us that the current
president of the United States was an FBI informant. I consider that to be gigantic news,
and I'm just curious, have we reached out to the FBI to Kash Patel to confirm
whether the president was at any time an FBI informant? I only say that because the speaker of the house obviously gets
significant briefings. He gets briefings that we do not get as regular members. And so I I think this is
something that we need to hear definitively before Kash Patel comes, we should clear up maybe, we should
send a letter to him, to find out if the president was an informant. And if he was an informant, is that because he was
working with the FBI after he was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein? Did he
turn because he got caught with Jeffrey Epstein? You know, when you're an FBI informant, there are lots of questions
about how you became an FBI informant and then how long was he an FBI informant? When did his service to the
FBI stop, you know, being a member of the deep state? When when did he stop
doing that? I mean, look, any if if a regular member had said this, I would discount it. But the speaker of the
house is the one who said it. And then he said afterwards, well, I may have misspoke. What was his
misspeak? Instead of informant, did he mean agent? I mean, what is the misspeak for informant? I mean, I don't know
another word that we use when we're describing an FBI agent or FBI informant
or undercover. I mean, what was the misspeak here? And if he was lying then,
is he lying now? I'm just confused. Perhaps maybe the speaker should come to our committee and tell us what he meant
when he said that. It's just it's -- I'm still speaking. I'm still
speaking.
Is there an a bill or an amendment on the floor?
I have strike the last word. I'm allowed to finish my --
gentleman. Gentlemen from Florida has a time. He's speaking as I think he's speaking about the bill. Well, he's not really
speaking about the bill, but he's recognized to speak about the bill.
Well, he's just been interrupted for about 30 seconds. I'd ask that it be
added back onto his -- Can we move to restore his time? That was a completely improper interjection.
Time to stop. We'll give him plenty of
time. I'm usually good about that.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence. And I'm only bringing it up again because this
committee is the committee of jurisdiction over the FBI. And I don't think in the history of this country
we've had a speaker of the house say the president was an FBI informant. I mean
that is a dual role if I ever heard one. And so I just think we have
questions, Mr. Chairman, and on a bipartisan basis maybe the answer is no. He wasn't an FBI informant. And that's
fine if the answer is no. I just think we need to hear from the FBI. The
speaker has confused the American people whether Trump was working with the FBI against Jeffrey Epstein because he had
information about Jeffrey Epstein, because he was there for a long period of time, and then got turned maybe by
the FBI? I mean, did Trump ever go undercover?
I mean, these are questions
that the speaker has raised. By the way, a president going undercover would be interesting, you know, but these are
questions that he's raised. That is not a misspeak. There is not another adjective or verb for FBI informant,
right? I understand the president kicked him out of his club. That doesn't make you an FBI informant. So, I think we
need to get to the bottom of that.
Will the gentleman yield?
I will.
Just to add on to that,
in 2002 the president said that he was aware that Jeffrey Epstein likes girls
on the younger side. In 2003 he provided a birthday card
with the shape of a woman and his clear signature for anyone who actually
looks at it, and references a secret. In 2004,
the FBI initiated an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
I would like for this committee to request from the FBI the opening
document, the report of investigation that would have initiated the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in
2004. Because I think we should know how that investigation began. We know that
President Trump had a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein around that time. Was it
President Trump who provided the FBI with the information that caused this
investigation to be opened? This committee deserves to know that. I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Maryland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
follow up on the excellent points made by the the gentleman from Florida and
from New York. Let's try this again. I've got an amendment at the desk.
Gentleman from California reserves a point of order. Amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to HR 4371 offered by Mr. Raskin. Without objection, the amendment be
considered as read.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to explain the amendment
Mr. Chairman, thank you,
ensures the release of all files associated with Alex Acosta in the Epstein affair. The gentleman from
New York focuses our attention on the fact that this was being investigated back in 2004, five, and six. And in May
of 2007, an assistant US attorney working for DOJ
prepared a draft, a 60 criminal count indictment against Epstein. 60 criminal
counts for statutory rape, rape, solicitation, human trafficking,
conspiracy, and so on. They had a very comprehensive and complex understanding
of what Epstein was doing, how he was funding it, who was involved in it. And
just two months later, Epstein's attorneys met with the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and that
US attorney would later become famous as Donald Trump's secretary of labor. But at that point, he was leading the
investigation, and he offered to end the investigation, and throw away those 60
federal charges completely if Epstein would plead guilty to the state charge
of solicitation. Now, that has got to be the sweetest, coziest, sweetheart deal ever made by a
federal prosecutor. They've got this guy dead to rights on 60 criminal counts of
running a comprehensive child sex trafficking conspiracy, an international
one for those of you who are sticklers for materiality and relevance. An
international child sex trafficking ring. And they gave it all away. They
accepted a short jail stay for him. So what
did he get to do down there in Florida? Well, he plead guilty, and he got 18 months in a minimum security facility.
He was allowed to leave for 12 hours a day to work at a foundation he
founded ,and apparently continued doing exactly what he was doing before.And I don't want to be too graphic and lurid because there might be kids watching. But he was doing precisely the kinds
of things that we're talking about in terms of the protection of children. He was violating children, violating young
women. And then he would go and spend the night in jail. And in the meantime, he was able to bargain immunity for all
of these other people who were working for him.
Would the gentleman yield?
Yes, by all means.
In other words,
while he was doing all the sexual predation, the government was providing room and board and meals, and making it
cheap for him to do so. Well, that's not a bad way of looking at it. Especially because apparently it
was a very comfy jail cell they set up for him. Now, I'm sure he would have preferred to be back in one of his mansions, which were basically
sexual dungeons for the young women and girls that got swept up in his sex
conspiracy, which was something that the vast majority of Americans deplore and
abhor and want to get to the bottom of and want to know the truth about. But anyway, he spent those nights and then
they wiped the slate clean for him to continue to go on and do it again and
again and again. This is a guy who should have immediately been prosecuted, then convicted and sent to prison
for the rest of his life for what he had done.
Now, Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted
and convicted as a felony sex offender, and sentenced to 20 years in jail. She just got transferred out of
her prison to a Club Fed where sex offenders are not normally allowed.
Felony sex offenders are not normally allowed there. But after she spoke to
the president's former criminal defense attorney, who's now working in the Department of Justice, and he liked what
he heard, she was immediately transferred over to this very comfy
arrangement in Texas. She skipped over months and months of the normal process
where you have to prove there's some compelling reason to be transferred from one facility to another under the rules
of the Bureau of Prisons. She bypassed all of that and she got sent over to this other prison because Mr.
Blanche liked what he heard when he went over to talk to her. Come on! We're the
Congress of the United States. The framers of the Constitution thought that we would stand up for integrity, and we
would stand up for our interests, and not be servile partisan sycophants to the
president of the United States. So, let us all show some backbone today.
Let's say we don't move forward on this legislation until the Epstein Acosta
file is released. Let's vote for that everybody. And if you're serious about getting the truth of it, you will
support my amendment. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman yields back. I would just point out that the director of
the FBI will be sitting at that table one week from today, and all the questions and concerns Mr. Moskowitz
raised, he can ask the director. You can ask him right to his face and get the
answers and then with regards to Mr. Acosta, he will be being deposed on the 19th of this month.
So in nine days he he'll set for a deposition where he will be under oath, and Mr. Garcia, who has the job that Mr.
Raskin used to have, can ask him all the questions, make all the points that the ranking member of the judiciary
committee just raised.
But Mr. Mr. Chairman, you would agree that the question gentleman from California is recognition be more meaningful if we actually had
the file. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. Gentleman insist on his point of order. Does the sponsor of the amendment
just I'll recognize the gentleman. Thank you. I I I'm I'm reminded of Churchill's definition of a fanatic, a
man who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. But the subject has
uh nothing to do with immigration law uh which is a subject of this bill. And therefore, the gentleman's amendment
would introduce material beyond the scope and purpose of the bill before us. It violates House Rule 16, clause 7. I
yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does gentleman from Maryland wish to respond? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I suppose I am a
fanatic for child safety. I am a fanatic against child sex trafficking. Yes, I
am. And I will be a fanatic to stand up for the public interest and the vast majority of Americans who want the truth
to come out and don't want to sweep it under the rug. It's my time. It's my time. I'm not yielding to you right now.
I've heard enough from you. Now,
Mr. Epstein's victims included aspiring models from abroad, including South America. He had a whole team working in
France. The gentleman, the gentleman should focus on the point of order. This is a focusing on the point of
order, Mr. Chairman, because I'm talking about the international dimension. Just reminding the gentleman who spoke more
than anyone today here at this this hearing and has said that he's not going to support the bill as the gentleman from California just pointed out. So if
you can say safely order that'll be good. I would love to support the bill if you support the release of the Epstein file
and the Costa file. I mean let's we're forgetting all the information. Uh we're forgetting all that information
out and that's why I've told you about well let's get it out today's deposition and Mr. We've heard a lot of promises about
getting it out. We haven't seen much action. A lot of promises but no action. Today we could take some action.
The gentleman suggests that my amendment is not in order because it's not germanine to the question of
international child trafficking and illegal immigration. Well, Mr. Epste's
victims including aspiring models and girls being taken advantage of from
South American countries and from Europe and France. He used a ring of associates to rotate the women and girls in and out
of sexual servitude in different countries in different places using fraudulent modeling visas to transport
them across state lines and across international borders. He tracked their availability and their proximity using
this database. This is exactly what we're talking about. It's hard to see how it could be more material, more
germane, and more relevant.
It's also the case that air traffic
controllers in the Virgin Islands observed Mr. Epstein leaving his private plane in 2018 with girls who testimony
suggested, were as young as 11 or 12 years old.
In one undated incident detailed in a lawsuit, a 15-year-old girl attempted to
escape and swim off of Mr. Epstein's island after she was forced to engage in sex
acts with Mr. Epstein and some of his guests. The girl was found and held captive on the island after he
confiscated her passport, the lawsuit said. So this goes on and on. I mean,
you want to close your eyes to it, close your eyes to it and say it's not a big deal, but don't say it's not germaine.
You raised the question of the protection of children against international exploitation. This goes
right to the heart of it. And I'm happy to yield to any of my colleagues who haven't had a chance to weigh in yet.
The gentle lady from California. Uh thank you, ranking member. I too will support this amendment. I I was appalled
when I heard you say that they were preparing a 60 criminal count indictment
against Alexander Aosta. You said 60. That's even more than 37. But not against Aosta by Aosta against
Epstein and they suppressed it. Yes. Well, I was thinking 60 and then I was thinking 37 with Trump. 60 is a lot. And
then I started thinking, you know, the underlying bill is actually we would be debating institutionalized
child trafficking and abuse if you actually look at the text of the
underlying bill, which is why I support this amendment. We, the Republican, you
all want us to stop talking about the Epstein files, but we would stop talking about them if you just released them and
popped the balloon. And of course I'm not going to show up and ask Cash Battel these questions.
I'm trying to figure out why all the cover up
because at the end of the day we are talking about a man who orchestrated
the sexual abuse, the sexual assault, the rape of little
girls of girls under the age of 18. In many instances,
everyone is all up and flustered when you're talking about folks being on
a sex registry, about sex traffickers. But now all of a sudden with Jeffrey Epstein and all these people in these
files, they don't want a release. They don't want the truth.
That is why I support this amendment because it also begs the question of who
else is in the files and I want to know.
Well, I thank the gentle lady. I'd like to yield to the gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Gman. Thank you. Um, Mr. Raskin, just as we're
coming into this, it seems so clear and it should be clear to anyone with a law
degree who who has ever participated in litigation that you don't want to go into a deposition to question someone
when you don't have all the facts that are available. So, I wholeheartedly support the idea that we need to have
all of the Epstein files released. Otherwise, the work that this committee is going to do is going to be hamstrung.
It becomes another part of a cover up. You know, why won't they allow these files to be released when it would do
the most good for this committee and this Congress to do its work? I mean, what are they hiding? Um, I support the
amendment and I yield back to my colleague. I I just would say finally, Mr. Sherman. Uh this uh legislation is well intended
in different ways and it's very flawed in other ways. One of the ways in which it's flawed is it says that kids can
only be put with a US citizen or a permanent resident but not other people who have lawful presence in the country
who may be family members. Um don't we want a situation where all kids are taken care of so they don't uh so they
don't end up in a situation like this? they might be released to someone uh who's actually a child sex predator.
This is completely germanine and relevant and I hope everybody supports the amendment. Thanks.
Does uh not satisfy House rule 16 clause 7 and therefore uh the subject matter and fundamental purposes test and
therefore is not gerine and is out of order. I'd like to appeal the ruling of the chair. Gentleman appeals the ruling of the
chair. Gentleman from New Jersey makes a motion to table. All those in favor of tableabling the the motion to appeal say
I. I. Those opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair. The eyes have it.
Recorded vote please, Mr. Chair. Recorded vote being uh requested. The clerk will call the role. Mr. Jordan the table. Yes.
Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Isa. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mcccleintoch. Mr. Mcccleintoch votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie votes no. Mr. Mr. Roy, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fitzgerald votes I. Mr.
Klein, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Vandrew,
Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Vandrew votes I. Mr. Nells, Mr. Nells votes yes. Mr. Moore,
Mr. Kylie, Miss Hagaman, Miss Lee,
Mr. Hunt, Mr. Fry, Mr. Fry, votes I, Mr. Growthman. Mr.
Growthman votes I. Mr. Not, Mr. Harris,
Mr. Ander, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Gil, Mr.
Bombgardner, Mr. Bombgardner votes I. Mr. Raskin, no. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler,
no. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss Lofgrren, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Swallwell Mr. Lou
Mr. Lou votes no Miss Jipal Mipal votes no Mr. Kareah Mr. Koa votes no Miss Scandan
no Miss Scandlin votes no Mr. Negus Miss Mcbath Mcbath votes no Miss Ross
miss Balant Miss Balant votes no Mr. Garcia Mr. Garcia votes no Miss Cam
Lagard Camlagger Miss Camlagerv votes no Mr.
Mositz Mr. Mr. Mosquitz votes no. Mr. Goldman, Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss
Crockett, Mr. Moore, you're not recorded. Mr.
Moore votes yes. Mr. Isa votes yes.
Miss Lee votes yes.
Mr. Knot Mr. Not votes yes. Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes I.
Mr. Andre, you're not recorded. Mr. Andre votes yes.
Miss Lofrren. Miss Lofrren votes no.
Mr. Chairman, do we have a result under regular order now? Not under regular order.
Miss Ross, you're not recorded. No. Miss Ross votes no.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Thu Sep 11, 2025 7:21 pm
Epstein LEAKED Emails DOOM Trump & His DOJ
Legal AF
Sep 11, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
Newly-leaked Epstein emails show that Ghislaine Maxwell lied to Trump's DOJ about the child sex trafficking ring Trump's best friend ran, and provides proof of the real reason Trump "fired" Epstein as a best friend in 2008 and it had nothing to do with Epstein being a child sex predator. Popok looks closely at the new Bloomberg reporting and ties it together.
Transcript
We got some breaking news in the Epstein
Donald Trump scandal. Bloomberg has
gotten its hands on tens of thousands of
emails belonging to Jeffrey Epstein,
effectively his inbox. And it once and
for all demonstrates that Galain Maxwell
lied under oath when she was giving what
what Donald Trump hoped would be helpful
information, credible information to his
lackey Todd Blanch of the Department of
Justice. It was all a lie. The only
thing I think she said that was true was
her name. Because inside that treasure
trove of emails that Bloomberg and now
we have been able to access were the
gift list of $1.8 $8 million worth of
gifts, mostly through her that Jeffrey
Epstein gave not only wealthy people,
including Bill Clinton being listed,
Alan Dersuitz being listed as getting
extravagant gifts, but an entire section
for gifts given to his victims because
we now know the names of his victims and
what he bought them and when he bought
them and how he bought them through
Galain Maxwell, who denied, of course,
in her 300page transcript to the
government to try to get out of jail,
denied any involvement. Well, the emails
tell a completely different story. Not
only do you have the spreadsheet
prepared by her accountant, forget the
client list, we got the spreadsheet of
the gifts that Epstein had Maxwell
procure and give to victims and powerful
men alike.
We also show the the emails also show
the closeness of the relationship which
was denied by Maxwell and Epstein. how
close they were. They were even in the
process of fertility treatment, I guess,
for Maxwell to have Epstein's baby.
You also saw the perverse
exchanges where people were coming to
Epstein and offering women, girls,
including fathers of some of the victims
who were paid, according to a
spreadsheet, $10,000, I guess, to have
his prostitute out his daughter, his his
young daughter. And there's even a um a
message referencing Donald Trump. And it
and it it uh bolsters our analysis that
the reason that Donald Trump got rid of
his friendship with Jeffrey Epste had
nothing to do with the fact that he knew
or should have known that Jeffrey
Epstein was a pedophile.
But it was over a financial transaction
over a $41 million piece of property.
How do I know that? because there's an
email in which Galain Maxwell lists all
the participants effectively in the
transaction
and and comments about well the paper's
probably talking to these people about
that piece of property, right? Because
that's the reason it was it was a fight
over a $41 million piece of property
that led Donald Trump to get rid of
Jeffrey Epstein, not because he thought
he was a creep or he thought he was a or
Donald Trump was a FBI informant.
There's so much in this motherload of
emails. It's going to take several hot
takes, but I'm going to give you the
overview right here on Legal AF. I'm
Michael Popach. You're here on Thursday
morning. Let's get into it. Uh Bloomberg
has not revealed how these emails were
obtained, but I will tell you they are
devastating. Mainly, how do I know that?
Because Galain Maxwell's lawyer, David
Oscar Marcus, that never shuts up around
a microphone, has been completely
silent. Remember, he's trying to do a
rehabilitation campaign to portray
Galain Maxwell as a victim. Alan
Dersowitz went on television on Fox
News, former Harvard law professor, who
was Epstein's lawyer who negotiated his
nonprosecution agreement
and had him spend a short amount of time
in jail for coping to a plea of uh uh
soliciting prostitution from a child.
Uh he got a $75,000
car, Alexis,
by Epstein and Maxwell. doesn't talk
about that when he goes on Fox News or
Newsmax and defends Galain Maxwell that
he got paid off by Donald Trump by uh by
Epstein. Never. Of course, that's never
mentioned. The um there is emails in
there between Epstein and victims in
which he talks about sex and demanding
sex from them. There's emails in this
treasure trove between E. Epstein and
others saying, "You got to meet this
young Russian college student because
she will be able to get you other
Russian girls or other girls that are in
her school in New York." And Epstein
says, "Send her over."
Okay. So this theory that nobody,
including Donald Trump, could have known
that Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile
and went after girls has all been
destroyed. We have a concept in the law
called willful blindness.
You cannot be willfully blind. You
cannot because it you it the law exists
under a new or should have known
standard.
Donald Trump should have known, if he
didn't actually know, that his best
friend was a pedophile and a and and
raping girls. And how do we know that?
Look at the birthday album. 237 pages.
Many of the pages are disgusting.
References to Jeffrey Epstein and Girls
and Little Girls.
I turned 50. I didn't get a birthday
album like that. There's a handdrawn
cartoon of Jeffrey Epstein on one side
of it with balloons and candies for
little girls at a school and in the next
panel it's him being massaged and
whatever with bikini clad girls
in the book will show that
in addition there is his Amazon receipts
from 2008 2009 and beyond. and he bought
a little girl's school uniform, an FBI
agent's uniform, and a bullhip
can tell a lot about a person from their
Amazon account.
And but but the dots that Donald Trump
refused to connect, you had one you had
one picture in the in the in the album
again, friends of Jeffrey Epstein, where
girls are massaging Jeffrey Epstein
naked, topless. One of them has his
initials tattooed on her on her um
buttocks.
[Music]
Nobody is denying the veracity or the
validity of any of the entries in the
237 page book double-sided. It's 500
entries. Only Donald Trump. Only
somebody patched a plot 30 years ago to
go after Donald Trump and have it
surface in 2025 by pasting into a book a
forged uh a forged birthday card that
matches in tone and matches in content
everybody else's submission
including Alan Dersuits with a dirty
submission.
But when you look at the emails and I'll
read I'll read a few of them to you.
You've even got Maxwell and Epstein
talking about the language and what deal
he should take in 2008 negotiated by
Dersowitz. Which deal he should take?
Should he do elude and lascivious
or sex with a minor? And they're negot
they're going back and forth about what
do you think which is better for me to
put in my plea deal and go to way for a
few months? And then of course all the
emails from Galain Maxwell to Epstein
while he was in jail for that short
amount of time telling how in her
heartfelt way how much she missed him.
Um, there's also in court which also
puts a lie to her testimony where she
said, you know, I I didn't make much
money with him or I don't know where the
money came from. There's entire
spreadsheets and entries for her
involvement as a director of one of his
major companies.
Bank accounts opened in her name.
A willing participant. If you wondered
why she was convicted after several
weeks by a jury 90 beyond a reasonable
doubt for child sex trafficking, the
emails help tell the story. It also
tells the story why Donald Trump is
trying to dupe the American people into
believing that Kelain Maxwell is
innocent to rehabilitate her reputation
so she can vouch for him. Right? So, um,
let me go over some of the emails that
are in here.
Let me start let me start with the
spreadsheet of gifts and payments.
You've got um $200
to a Victoria Secrets gift to a victim
who testified at trial. You've got
$1,200 for a Thai massage class to women
that he was recruiting.
was all receipts in his email box. $33
massage for dummies books. A $10,000
Rolex watch. $2,000 rent for a victim
who was recruited by Maxwell.
$3,300 for laptops for two young women
described as Epstein's assistants and
his victims. $3,700 check to a victim
for the international studies program.
Um, $2,000
for Kaplan business, uh, English as a
second language for two women that are
his victims.
$25,000 wire to one woman who is
described as his assistant and his
victim.
$500 gift card for a lingerie store for
two women described as his assistants.
Diamond necklaces and earrings for
Maxwell.
a Lexus uh Alex Lexus to Allan Dersuitz
etc etc. You have the emails
um
and watches for his and watches for his
friends. Um, here's the here's the email
in August of 2007
about the real estate deal. That is the
true reason that Donald Trump fired
Epstein as a friend. Had nothing to do
with him knowing he was a pedophile or
or acknowledging it. This is from
Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein. You have to
assume this is right around the time
right before he signed the
nonprosecution agreement.
You have to assume they I assume that's
the prosecutors went to Donald Trump
then Gossman the docs in West Palm Beach
Pashcow etc. Let's talk through that.
Abe Gossman is a healthc care magnet who
owned in a property that Trump bought
for $41 million but only after a heated
bidding war with Epstein. That's the
reason they no longer talked after
2007208.
And this proves that point or at least
demonstrates that that was an event, a
transaction that even Epstein was
concerned about. So, so they're afraid
that the prosecutors went to Trump about
that property, Gossman about that
property. The docks in West Palm Beach,
I don't think that refers to doc to do
doctors. I think that refers to
documents
which would have been recorded with the
property assessor's office, the clerk's
office which sits in West Palm Beach,
having lived in West Palm Beach. I think
that's the story. And Pashkow is another
real estate person that that is well
known to Epstein and Trump and who was
also in the birthday book. He's the one
that had the photo of Donald Trump along
with Epstein selling a girl for $22,000.
Again, willful blindness on the part of
Donald Trump. He either knew he was
friends with a sexual predator or he had
willfully made himself blind to that
fact. But now with these emails out, and
we'll do other hot takes about it, other
deep dives about it. Now that these are
out, there's no way Gain Maxwell can be
given a pardon. There's no way the story
of her being a victim can survive. And
that makes that that puts Donald Trump
in a tremendous hole. This is why he's
leaning into the Charlie Kirk
assassination so heavily to get away
from his deep friendship and the scandal
around him being uh uh close ties with a
convicted child sex trafficker and his
continued refusal to release the
documents. And that means free media and
first amendment freedom of the press has
to go out and find these emails and
report on it. We're doing it here. I'm
glad you're here. I'm going to post what
I can on our legal AF Substack so you
can get access to it. In the meantime,
I'm Michael Popach.
Legal AF
Sep 11, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
Newly-leaked Epstein emails show that Ghislaine Maxwell lied to Trump's DOJ about the child sex trafficking ring Trump's best friend ran, and provides proof of the real reason Trump "fired" Epstein as a best friend in 2008 and it had nothing to do with Epstein being a child sex predator. Popok looks closely at the new Bloomberg reporting and ties it together.
Transcript
We got some breaking news in the Epstein
Donald Trump scandal. Bloomberg has
gotten its hands on tens of thousands of
emails belonging to Jeffrey Epstein,
effectively his inbox. And it once and
for all demonstrates that Galain Maxwell
lied under oath when she was giving what
what Donald Trump hoped would be helpful
information, credible information to his
lackey Todd Blanch of the Department of
Justice. It was all a lie. The only
thing I think she said that was true was
her name. Because inside that treasure
trove of emails that Bloomberg and now
we have been able to access were the
gift list of $1.8 $8 million worth of
gifts, mostly through her that Jeffrey
Epstein gave not only wealthy people,
including Bill Clinton being listed,
Alan Dersuitz being listed as getting
extravagant gifts, but an entire section
for gifts given to his victims because
we now know the names of his victims and
what he bought them and when he bought
them and how he bought them through
Galain Maxwell, who denied, of course,
in her 300page transcript to the
government to try to get out of jail,
denied any involvement. Well, the emails
tell a completely different story. Not
only do you have the spreadsheet
prepared by her accountant, forget the
client list, we got the spreadsheet of
the gifts that Epstein had Maxwell
procure and give to victims and powerful
men alike.
We also show the the emails also show
the closeness of the relationship which
was denied by Maxwell and Epstein. how
close they were. They were even in the
process of fertility treatment, I guess,
for Maxwell to have Epstein's baby.
You also saw the perverse
exchanges where people were coming to
Epstein and offering women, girls,
including fathers of some of the victims
who were paid, according to a
spreadsheet, $10,000, I guess, to have
his prostitute out his daughter, his his
young daughter. And there's even a um a
message referencing Donald Trump. And it
and it it uh bolsters our analysis that
the reason that Donald Trump got rid of
his friendship with Jeffrey Epste had
nothing to do with the fact that he knew
or should have known that Jeffrey
Epstein was a pedophile.
But it was over a financial transaction
over a $41 million piece of property.
How do I know that? because there's an
email in which Galain Maxwell lists all
the participants effectively in the
transaction
and and comments about well the paper's
probably talking to these people about
that piece of property, right? Because
that's the reason it was it was a fight
over a $41 million piece of property
that led Donald Trump to get rid of
Jeffrey Epstein, not because he thought
he was a creep or he thought he was a or
Donald Trump was a FBI informant.
There's so much in this motherload of
emails. It's going to take several hot
takes, but I'm going to give you the
overview right here on Legal AF. I'm
Michael Popach. You're here on Thursday
morning. Let's get into it. Uh Bloomberg
has not revealed how these emails were
obtained, but I will tell you they are
devastating. Mainly, how do I know that?
Because Galain Maxwell's lawyer, David
Oscar Marcus, that never shuts up around
a microphone, has been completely
silent. Remember, he's trying to do a
rehabilitation campaign to portray
Galain Maxwell as a victim. Alan
Dersowitz went on television on Fox
News, former Harvard law professor, who
was Epstein's lawyer who negotiated his
nonprosecution agreement
and had him spend a short amount of time
in jail for coping to a plea of uh uh
soliciting prostitution from a child.
Uh he got a $75,000
car, Alexis,
by Epstein and Maxwell. doesn't talk
about that when he goes on Fox News or
Newsmax and defends Galain Maxwell that
he got paid off by Donald Trump by uh by
Epstein. Never. Of course, that's never
mentioned. The um there is emails in
there between Epstein and victims in
which he talks about sex and demanding
sex from them. There's emails in this
treasure trove between E. Epstein and
others saying, "You got to meet this
young Russian college student because
she will be able to get you other
Russian girls or other girls that are in
her school in New York." And Epstein
says, "Send her over."
Okay. So this theory that nobody,
including Donald Trump, could have known
that Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile
and went after girls has all been
destroyed. We have a concept in the law
called willful blindness.
You cannot be willfully blind. You
cannot because it you it the law exists
under a new or should have known
standard.
Donald Trump should have known, if he
didn't actually know, that his best
friend was a pedophile and a and and
raping girls. And how do we know that?
Look at the birthday album. 237 pages.
Many of the pages are disgusting.
References to Jeffrey Epstein and Girls
and Little Girls.
I turned 50. I didn't get a birthday
album like that. There's a handdrawn
cartoon of Jeffrey Epstein on one side
of it with balloons and candies for
little girls at a school and in the next
panel it's him being massaged and
whatever with bikini clad girls
in the book will show that
in addition there is his Amazon receipts
from 2008 2009 and beyond. and he bought
a little girl's school uniform, an FBI
agent's uniform, and a bullhip
can tell a lot about a person from their
Amazon account.
And but but the dots that Donald Trump
refused to connect, you had one you had
one picture in the in the in the album
again, friends of Jeffrey Epstein, where
girls are massaging Jeffrey Epstein
naked, topless. One of them has his
initials tattooed on her on her um
buttocks.
[Music]
Nobody is denying the veracity or the
validity of any of the entries in the
237 page book double-sided. It's 500
entries. Only Donald Trump. Only
somebody patched a plot 30 years ago to
go after Donald Trump and have it
surface in 2025 by pasting into a book a
forged uh a forged birthday card that
matches in tone and matches in content
everybody else's submission
including Alan Dersuits with a dirty
submission.
But when you look at the emails and I'll
read I'll read a few of them to you.
You've even got Maxwell and Epstein
talking about the language and what deal
he should take in 2008 negotiated by
Dersowitz. Which deal he should take?
Should he do elude and lascivious
or sex with a minor? And they're negot
they're going back and forth about what
do you think which is better for me to
put in my plea deal and go to way for a
few months? And then of course all the
emails from Galain Maxwell to Epstein
while he was in jail for that short
amount of time telling how in her
heartfelt way how much she missed him.
Um, there's also in court which also
puts a lie to her testimony where she
said, you know, I I didn't make much
money with him or I don't know where the
money came from. There's entire
spreadsheets and entries for her
involvement as a director of one of his
major companies.
Bank accounts opened in her name.
A willing participant. If you wondered
why she was convicted after several
weeks by a jury 90 beyond a reasonable
doubt for child sex trafficking, the
emails help tell the story. It also
tells the story why Donald Trump is
trying to dupe the American people into
believing that Kelain Maxwell is
innocent to rehabilitate her reputation
so she can vouch for him. Right? So, um,
let me go over some of the emails that
are in here.
Let me start let me start with the
spreadsheet of gifts and payments.
You've got um $200
to a Victoria Secrets gift to a victim
who testified at trial. You've got
$1,200 for a Thai massage class to women
that he was recruiting.
was all receipts in his email box. $33
massage for dummies books. A $10,000
Rolex watch. $2,000 rent for a victim
who was recruited by Maxwell.
$3,300 for laptops for two young women
described as Epstein's assistants and
his victims. $3,700 check to a victim
for the international studies program.
Um, $2,000
for Kaplan business, uh, English as a
second language for two women that are
his victims.
$25,000 wire to one woman who is
described as his assistant and his
victim.
$500 gift card for a lingerie store for
two women described as his assistants.
Diamond necklaces and earrings for
Maxwell.
a Lexus uh Alex Lexus to Allan Dersuitz
etc etc. You have the emails
um
and watches for his and watches for his
friends. Um, here's the here's the email
in August of 2007
about the real estate deal. That is the
true reason that Donald Trump fired
Epstein as a friend. Had nothing to do
with him knowing he was a pedophile or
or acknowledging it. This is from
Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein. You have to
assume this is right around the time
right before he signed the
nonprosecution agreement.
You have to assume they I assume that's
the prosecutors went to Donald Trump
then Gossman the docs in West Palm Beach
Pashcow etc. Let's talk through that.
Abe Gossman is a healthc care magnet who
owned in a property that Trump bought
for $41 million but only after a heated
bidding war with Epstein. That's the
reason they no longer talked after
2007208.
And this proves that point or at least
demonstrates that that was an event, a
transaction that even Epstein was
concerned about. So, so they're afraid
that the prosecutors went to Trump about
that property, Gossman about that
property. The docks in West Palm Beach,
I don't think that refers to doc to do
doctors. I think that refers to
documents
which would have been recorded with the
property assessor's office, the clerk's
office which sits in West Palm Beach,
having lived in West Palm Beach. I think
that's the story. And Pashkow is another
real estate person that that is well
known to Epstein and Trump and who was
also in the birthday book. He's the one
that had the photo of Donald Trump along
with Epstein selling a girl for $22,000.
Again, willful blindness on the part of
Donald Trump. He either knew he was
friends with a sexual predator or he had
willfully made himself blind to that
fact. But now with these emails out, and
we'll do other hot takes about it, other
deep dives about it. Now that these are
out, there's no way Gain Maxwell can be
given a pardon. There's no way the story
of her being a victim can survive. And
that makes that that puts Donald Trump
in a tremendous hole. This is why he's
leaning into the Charlie Kirk
assassination so heavily to get away
from his deep friendship and the scandal
around him being uh uh close ties with a
convicted child sex trafficker and his
continued refusal to release the
documents. And that means free media and
first amendment freedom of the press has
to go out and find these emails and
report on it. We're doing it here. I'm
glad you're here. I'm going to post what
I can on our legal AF Substack so you
can get access to it. In the meantime,
I'm Michael Popach.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Thu Sep 11, 2025 10:52 pm
Trump's MAR-A-LAGO Secret Revealed by EPSTEIN BOOK
Adam Mockler
Sep 9, 2025 The Adam Mockler Show
Transcript
All right, there is no defending this
disturbing breaking news that we just
got. Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort has
been directly linked to a creepy drawing
that was sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his
50th birthday. This creepy drawing
depicts Epstein getting a massage at
some sort of resort from young girls.
Now, people were doing research for the
past 24 hours until they realized this
resort isn't on Epstein's Island. This
is Trump's own Mar-a-Lago spa. This
becomes even more uniquely eerie when
you realize that Epstein used Mara Lago
as a grooming grounds to find young
girls to groom them and then
subsequently sexually abuse them
throughout their teen years and early
20s. So after Congress got this book,
this birthday book from the Epstein
estate that had messages from hundreds
of celebrities, you know, businessmen,
rich people, all sending things to
Jeffrey Epstein to applaud him. And not
all of them knew. I wouldn't say that
every single person knew, but as people
began to look through these messages, it
became increasingly obvious that many
people in the Epstein circle knew
exactly what was happening. Which when
you look at Harvey Weinstein for
example, he didn't get caught until the
Me Too movement until the mid2010s and
he was doing some insanely disgusting
stuff too. So I guess rich white men
cover for rich white men when they abuse
power or sexually abuse people who they
deem not in a position of power like
young girls. It's very very disgusting.
And now that we have the opportunity to
bring accountability, we need to be
fighting day in and day out to expose
these creeps who are now in power.
Imagine being one of the survivors who
has spent decades and decades trying to
get any sort of investigation and all
you see are these people rise further to
power like Alex Aosta or Donald Trump or
others who are allegedly directly
involved. Now, as people were looking
through this book, they saw this
drawing. This is the drawing that we
will get to. But there was also this odd
check. This check implies that Epstein
sold a girl to Trump. It's so weird. It
says Jeffrey sharing early talents with
money sells fully depreciated blank to
Donald Trump for $22,000.
Now, the prevailing theory here is that
this is a girl that was dated or dating
Jeffrey Epstein that then went on to
date Donald Trump and they were joking
about like quote unquote joking
disgustingly about how she was sold to
Donald Trump from Jeffrey Epstein with
this big mock check. That is the
prevailing theory. But people think it
could be much much more insidious. Even
if that is the theory, it is a
disgusting display from rich men who
clearly treat women like something that
can be sold. Young women like something
that are to be sold. Check out this
drawing right here because this is the
main foundation of what people are
talking about. On the left, you see
Jeffrey Epstein at age 40 years old. He
was like 30 or 40 in that giving
balloons to young girls who were
blushing and in skirts. Somebody drew
this. This is a 30-year-old Jeffrey
Epstein. Then you see him in 2003
getting a massage on what looks to be
some sort of resort or island or spa
with a palm tree and a resort in the
background by young girls. YouTube might
actually strike this video down. And I I
I don't I wouldn't blame them. This is
creepy as hell. It's so incredibly
creepy, but the facts need to be shown.
Now, this drawing was sent to Jeffrey
Epstein. What people figured out was
this. Oh god. The creepy picture of
Epstein grooming girls to get massages
is not Epstein's house on the island.
It's the Mara Lago as seen from the
beach. Whoever drew this was drawing
Epstein getting massages by girls he
groomed while on Trump property. Let me
zoom back into this slowly and I want
you to pay close attention to this
resort right here. We can actually zoom
in even further by looking at this
photo. We see palm trees, a beach, and
we see brown roofs with multiple stories
uh with a pyramid at the top. Now, when
we look at the Mara Lago resort, it's
the exact same color. It's the exact
same thing. There are even better
illustrations that we can look at. For
example, look at this. Look at how the
beach looks behind it. Look at how it's
all perfectly just look at the alignment
of the beach to the place. Then look at
this photo right here. It's the same
exact alignment. It's very, very creepy.
But it gets even worse. So, as Adam
Cochran points out, whoever drew this
was drawing Epstein getting massages by
girls he groomed while on Trump's
property. But to continue, Maxwell chose
to include this in the book. Maxwell
vetted everything that went into this
book. And remember when Todd Blanch,
Trump's personal lawyer turned deputy
attorney general, when he interviewed
Gileain Maxwell and released the tapes,
she said she didn't even know if this
book existed. She had never really heard
of it and she doesn't remember it. Which
means that everything she said can be
undermined easily as a lie. I mean, it
already could be, but it clearly exists
and she was clearly lying after vetting
everything. This says Maxwell chose to
include this in the book. It was in 2003
and depicts Epstein at a Mara Lago with
groomed girls. It was 3 years after
Trump recently claimed he cut off
Epstein for quote unquote stealing
employees. So everyone clearly knew what
was happening at Mara Lago. Like here's
the timeline. In 1993, Trump was holding
behindthe-scenes parties with just
Epstein and a bunch of quote unquote
calendar girls. In 2000, Trump claims to
have cut Epstein off because Epstein
groomed Virginia Juy, rest in peace. He
groomed Virginia Du Fray out of Mara
Lago. Trump said recently out of Air
Force One, I cut him off after that. I
never talked to him. Well, then in 2003,
Trump sent these messages, sent these
drawings, which we've talked about,
these other drawings of Epstein at Mara
Lago getting a massage maybe at the spa.
They were sent to him and Trump even
admitted, "Yeah, he likes them young.
This guy likes them young." To continue,
let's read this article. It says, "Uh,
Virginia Dufrey said in a lawsuit she
was hired away from Mara Lago Spa by
Epstein's accomplice, Gileain Maxwell in
2000 when she was 16. Juy, who died this
year, alleged in her complaint that she
was first abused by Epstein and Maxwell
together and then lent to other powerful
men. Quote, I think she worked at the
spa." Trump replied, "Yeah, I think so.
I think that was one of the people.
Yeah, he stole her." Jesus Christ, this
man. To continue, the Little James house
looks nothing like Mara Lago. The house
on Epstein's Island looks nothing like
it. You know, I love all the Trump
voters that comment and troll on my
videos. I don't love it for the same
reason that other people love. I just
find it hilarious that they are coping
so hard as I present this evidence that
they have to try to make fun of me or
deflect to Biden or deflect to Clinton.
Yeah, if Clinton did stuff, then arrest
him. I don't care. I'm not going to
defend Bill Clinton for allegedly doing
terrible stuff, too, but maybe we should
release it and get the actual evidence.
It's funny because before I read this,
Republicans draw these insane conspiracy
theories. Like, I have friends from high
school. I grew up in Indiana, right? So,
a lot of my friends from high school
ended up being MAGA. And I see them
posting this insane conspiratorial stuff
on Instagram or Facebook because I still
follow them. And it'll be the biggest
stretch ever. It'll be like in 2009, Joe
Biden wore the color red with a circle
and an arrow. The color red with the
circle and an arrow was worn by famous
pedophile John in 1982. And it's like
this line trying to connect things. And
it's like, hey, we don't have to make
[ __ ] up to find the pedophilia in the
government. It's right here. Epste owned
this island as of 1998. Whoever drew
that picture clearly has one, insider
knowledge of Epstein's crimes, and two,
knew where Epstein committed these
crimes. Next, Congress needs to find out
who drew that picture and have them
under oath immediately because many
victims claim grooming from Mara Lago.
And the most detailed picture in the
birthday book related to Epstein's
crimes now feature Trump's residents.
Right? This is exactly what I was
saying. Someone says, "So the QAnon
people just don't care about this stuff
anymore." Adam says, "Right, they made
pizza orders into conspiracies that got
people killed. But when Trump's friends
are drawing birthday cards of someone
grooming kids at Mara Lago, there is
complete silence. Complete and utter
silence. And by the way, Mike Johnson
and other Republicans are complicit in
this cover up. Not only is Mike Johnson
complicit in this, but I keep pointing
out Matt Gates was also under
investigation by the DOJ in the House
Ethics Committee for sending Venmo
payments to underage girls. Yet Mike
Johnson covered that up. It is a
pattern. It's disgusting. It's
infuriating. And I'm going to leave it
there. If you appreciate these videos,
drop a like, subscribe. I'll see you on
the next one.
Adam Mockler
Sep 9, 2025 The Adam Mockler Show
Donald Trump will resign if Epstein files check out | David Cay Johnston
Times Radio
Sep 11, 2025 The Trump Report
“I don’t see how he could possibly survive that.”
If Trump is seen in “compromising positions” in the Epstein files, he will either be impeached, or resign, says David Cay Johnston.
And I think the most revealing thing in
there is not Donald Trump's uh letter with his sort of coded language about secrets and enigma, but the pages done
like a childlike drawings with crayons or colored pencils showing a group of
very young girls and then next to it a panel of what appear to be uh teenage
girls, pubescent girls, uh and a naked Jeffrey Epstein whom they're rubbing
with body oil all over and Mara Lago in the background. And secondly, the
picture of Jeffrey Epstein with a check over a woman who was sold between Donald
Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Not literally sold, but figuratively. Um, all of this
points to uh a really serious scandal that was covered up um when Pam Bondi,
the US Attorney General, was the attorney general of Florida to widespread
among very uh super wealthy men uh utterly uh outrageous conduct....
And the difference between the Madoff Ponzi scheme, the biggest known Ponzi
scheme by far in the history of the world, and Jeffrey Epstein is, I think
the evidence points to Jeffrey Epstein running an extortion racket. And imagine
for a moment that you are a male billionaire, that you uh are shown a photo of you in
a compromising position with a 13-year-old girl, which means you're going to go to prison if this comes out.
How much would you pay to ensure your freedom? Hundreds of millions of
dollars, perhaps a billion or two of your billions. And that's the real story
here. And once we get to that, then the rest of this should come out....
Donald Trump has to be understood as who
he is, not who he presents himself as. He is the third generation head of a four generation white collar crime
family. They don't break legs and kill people. Uh they would never do that. But they cheat with contracts, broken
promises, uh compromising law enforcement officials or others to get
what they want. And and the Trumps are not the only family like this. They're just the most well-known family. And
Trump believes he is America's dictator. And he is at the moment de facto the
country's dictator. He just hasn't fully consolidated his power. He's eliminated many sources of accountability. So in
sending an ambassador to the United States, you need to have someone who first and foremost is not gullible.
They're not going to be taken in by Donald's terrific talents as a con artist. I mean, I've exposed con artists
throughout most of my career, which dates to 1966, and gotten some of them sent to prison.
And Donald is in a league by himself as a con artist. So you need to have someone who is a flinty and has a clear
moral core and at the same time who can dance with the devil and that's a rare
set of skills. It augers for career diplomats who have worked in very
difficult posts and successfully maintained relationships with dictators
or wannabe dictators. Uh not a politician, not someone who was picked
because of their wealth.
Transcript
All right, there is no defending this
disturbing breaking news that we just
got. Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort has
been directly linked to a creepy drawing
that was sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his
50th birthday. This creepy drawing
depicts Epstein getting a massage at
some sort of resort from young girls.
Now, people were doing research for the
past 24 hours until they realized this
resort isn't on Epstein's Island. This
is Trump's own Mar-a-Lago spa. This
becomes even more uniquely eerie when
you realize that Epstein used Mara Lago
as a grooming grounds to find young
girls to groom them and then
subsequently sexually abuse them
throughout their teen years and early
20s. So after Congress got this book,
this birthday book from the Epstein
estate that had messages from hundreds
of celebrities, you know, businessmen,
rich people, all sending things to
Jeffrey Epstein to applaud him. And not
all of them knew. I wouldn't say that
every single person knew, but as people
began to look through these messages, it
became increasingly obvious that many
people in the Epstein circle knew
exactly what was happening. Which when
you look at Harvey Weinstein for
example, he didn't get caught until the
Me Too movement until the mid2010s and
he was doing some insanely disgusting
stuff too. So I guess rich white men
cover for rich white men when they abuse
power or sexually abuse people who they
deem not in a position of power like
young girls. It's very very disgusting.
And now that we have the opportunity to
bring accountability, we need to be
fighting day in and day out to expose
these creeps who are now in power.
Imagine being one of the survivors who
has spent decades and decades trying to
get any sort of investigation and all
you see are these people rise further to
power like Alex Aosta or Donald Trump or
others who are allegedly directly
involved. Now, as people were looking
through this book, they saw this
drawing. This is the drawing that we
will get to. But there was also this odd
check. This check implies that Epstein
sold a girl to Trump. It's so weird. It
says Jeffrey sharing early talents with
money sells fully depreciated blank to
Donald Trump for $22,000.
Now, the prevailing theory here is that
this is a girl that was dated or dating
Jeffrey Epstein that then went on to
date Donald Trump and they were joking
about like quote unquote joking
disgustingly about how she was sold to
Donald Trump from Jeffrey Epstein with
this big mock check. That is the
prevailing theory. But people think it
could be much much more insidious. Even
if that is the theory, it is a
disgusting display from rich men who
clearly treat women like something that
can be sold. Young women like something
that are to be sold. Check out this
drawing right here because this is the
main foundation of what people are
talking about. On the left, you see
Jeffrey Epstein at age 40 years old. He
was like 30 or 40 in that giving
balloons to young girls who were
blushing and in skirts. Somebody drew
this. This is a 30-year-old Jeffrey
Epstein. Then you see him in 2003
getting a massage on what looks to be
some sort of resort or island or spa
with a palm tree and a resort in the
background by young girls. YouTube might
actually strike this video down. And I I
I don't I wouldn't blame them. This is
creepy as hell. It's so incredibly
creepy, but the facts need to be shown.
Now, this drawing was sent to Jeffrey
Epstein. What people figured out was
this. Oh god. The creepy picture of
Epstein grooming girls to get massages
is not Epstein's house on the island.
It's the Mara Lago as seen from the
beach. Whoever drew this was drawing
Epstein getting massages by girls he
groomed while on Trump property. Let me
zoom back into this slowly and I want
you to pay close attention to this
resort right here. We can actually zoom
in even further by looking at this
photo. We see palm trees, a beach, and
we see brown roofs with multiple stories
uh with a pyramid at the top. Now, when
we look at the Mara Lago resort, it's
the exact same color. It's the exact
same thing. There are even better
illustrations that we can look at. For
example, look at this. Look at how the
beach looks behind it. Look at how it's
all perfectly just look at the alignment
of the beach to the place. Then look at
this photo right here. It's the same
exact alignment. It's very, very creepy.
But it gets even worse. So, as Adam
Cochran points out, whoever drew this
was drawing Epstein getting massages by
girls he groomed while on Trump's
property. But to continue, Maxwell chose
to include this in the book. Maxwell
vetted everything that went into this
book. And remember when Todd Blanch,
Trump's personal lawyer turned deputy
attorney general, when he interviewed
Gileain Maxwell and released the tapes,
she said she didn't even know if this
book existed. She had never really heard
of it and she doesn't remember it. Which
means that everything she said can be
undermined easily as a lie. I mean, it
already could be, but it clearly exists
and she was clearly lying after vetting
everything. This says Maxwell chose to
include this in the book. It was in 2003
and depicts Epstein at a Mara Lago with
groomed girls. It was 3 years after
Trump recently claimed he cut off
Epstein for quote unquote stealing
employees. So everyone clearly knew what
was happening at Mara Lago. Like here's
the timeline. In 1993, Trump was holding
behindthe-scenes parties with just
Epstein and a bunch of quote unquote
calendar girls. In 2000, Trump claims to
have cut Epstein off because Epstein
groomed Virginia Juy, rest in peace. He
groomed Virginia Du Fray out of Mara
Lago. Trump said recently out of Air
Force One, I cut him off after that. I
never talked to him. Well, then in 2003,
Trump sent these messages, sent these
drawings, which we've talked about,
these other drawings of Epstein at Mara
Lago getting a massage maybe at the spa.
They were sent to him and Trump even
admitted, "Yeah, he likes them young.
This guy likes them young." To continue,
let's read this article. It says, "Uh,
Virginia Dufrey said in a lawsuit she
was hired away from Mara Lago Spa by
Epstein's accomplice, Gileain Maxwell in
2000 when she was 16. Juy, who died this
year, alleged in her complaint that she
was first abused by Epstein and Maxwell
together and then lent to other powerful
men. Quote, I think she worked at the
spa." Trump replied, "Yeah, I think so.
I think that was one of the people.
Yeah, he stole her." Jesus Christ, this
man. To continue, the Little James house
looks nothing like Mara Lago. The house
on Epstein's Island looks nothing like
it. You know, I love all the Trump
voters that comment and troll on my
videos. I don't love it for the same
reason that other people love. I just
find it hilarious that they are coping
so hard as I present this evidence that
they have to try to make fun of me or
deflect to Biden or deflect to Clinton.
Yeah, if Clinton did stuff, then arrest
him. I don't care. I'm not going to
defend Bill Clinton for allegedly doing
terrible stuff, too, but maybe we should
release it and get the actual evidence.
It's funny because before I read this,
Republicans draw these insane conspiracy
theories. Like, I have friends from high
school. I grew up in Indiana, right? So,
a lot of my friends from high school
ended up being MAGA. And I see them
posting this insane conspiratorial stuff
on Instagram or Facebook because I still
follow them. And it'll be the biggest
stretch ever. It'll be like in 2009, Joe
Biden wore the color red with a circle
and an arrow. The color red with the
circle and an arrow was worn by famous
pedophile John in 1982. And it's like
this line trying to connect things. And
it's like, hey, we don't have to make
[ __ ] up to find the pedophilia in the
government. It's right here. Epste owned
this island as of 1998. Whoever drew
that picture clearly has one, insider
knowledge of Epstein's crimes, and two,
knew where Epstein committed these
crimes. Next, Congress needs to find out
who drew that picture and have them
under oath immediately because many
victims claim grooming from Mara Lago.
And the most detailed picture in the
birthday book related to Epstein's
crimes now feature Trump's residents.
Right? This is exactly what I was
saying. Someone says, "So the QAnon
people just don't care about this stuff
anymore." Adam says, "Right, they made
pizza orders into conspiracies that got
people killed. But when Trump's friends
are drawing birthday cards of someone
grooming kids at Mara Lago, there is
complete silence. Complete and utter
silence. And by the way, Mike Johnson
and other Republicans are complicit in
this cover up. Not only is Mike Johnson
complicit in this, but I keep pointing
out Matt Gates was also under
investigation by the DOJ in the House
Ethics Committee for sending Venmo
payments to underage girls. Yet Mike
Johnson covered that up. It is a
pattern. It's disgusting. It's
infuriating. And I'm going to leave it
there. If you appreciate these videos,
drop a like, subscribe. I'll see you on
the next one.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Youtube videos
by admin » Sat Sep 13, 2025 8:05 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 38109
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Sacrifice Virgins, Get World by the Balls: The Mossad's Lolita Gambit
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests