I have my own sources high up in the the law enforcement, let's say, I'll just go that far, who say, "Not only do we believe he was an agent, but we we don't believe he killed himself." I mean, that's fine. Then they should come out and they should say that. And then they should say, "Who's covering that up?" Okay, but this is what they can't. I mean, there are a lot of people who say they can't, right? They they're they can't because let's look at what the administration is saying right now. They don't want to be the one to cross Trump. Look, my position is show us all the evidence so we can come to our own conclusions. have the names of the people. So, I agree with you. That's fine. I But in in the absence of that, I have the names of the people who are making the claim that the that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself and that the most gross, you know, and sort of extreme of the conspiracy theories or theories, just don't even call them conspiracy theories, the most sort of, you know, extreme version of the theory is not true. I have names of the people who are claiming that, okay? They are all in the administration. And this is my point. If if other people want to make those claims that are counter to that, then they should provide evidence or at least put their names on it so we can question them about that as well because otherwise we're just in the realm of pure speculation and frankly I I just don't find that useful. I would love more useful information. This is why I'm angry at Pan Bondi. I think there should be all the useful information possible. But the same thing holds true for people who are making claims on the other side. Otherwise, I can claim that he was working for a cadre of space aliens who are blackmailing high-profile Americans in order to protect from a future invasion. And there's just about as much evidence for that as many of the claims that are being made on the other side. All right. Well, let's talk about that is made requires evidence. Any claim it's being made requires actual evidence. And at the very least, in the absence of evidence, the incredible names of the people that I can either trust or not trust, ranging from, again, the president of the United States and vice president to the head of the FBI, the AG and the deputy head of the FBI. Well, I think it's it's very hard to say those people need to come out and put their names on their on these claims when they're working for an administration, this one and the one before that didn't want that to come out. You're asking somebody to counter the people they work for. How how am I supposed to falsify their claims? Now, we're working in the realm of the But you're Look, Ben, you can't come to me and say, "Everybody I know says he killed himself and then I respond saying I actually have my own sources who say he didn't." And then you say, "Well, your sources are not not valid because they won't put their names on it." Okay. Who are your sources? Let's go down the list and then we'll talk about why they might be saying that. My sources are the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, Cash Patel, the head of the FBI, Dan Bonino, the deputy head of the FBI, and Pam Bondi, the attorney general. And those aren't just my sources. They're everybody's sources because they publicly came out and said this. Okay. Trump hasn't specifically weighed in on that specific aspect of it. We've all seen the limited things that Trump has said and tweeted on this. and JD Vance was calling for transparency and suggesting otherwise prior to taking office. He hasn't commented on this so far, so he's not one. You've got Cash, you've got Dan, and you've got Pam. And we've already discussed that memo in in full detail. I'm talking about people behind the scenes who prior to to this to to Trump taking office. I'm not going to get too specific, but trust me, I have highle sources who have said they don't believe any of that any of that. So, and I'm not going to out them for purposes of convincing you, but you're telling me name them. I no I'm not going to I don't have authorization. And then you say, well, I dismiss all of it because you won't name them. Hold on, Megan. I'm not saying you should name them. I'm saying they should name themselves because otherwise they are being complicit in one of the greatest cover-ups in the history of That's easy for you to say, Ben. That's that's very easy. Why is that easy for me to say? Why? Because you'll have your job and you'll have your millions, no matter what. Are you kidding? Megan, give me a break. If somebody came out today and they were a whistleblower on the greatest scandal in the history of the American republic, they would make more money tomorrow than in their entire life working for the FBI. That's there there are reasons not to cross the people who are in charge. And that's all I'm going to say. And I look, this is me not having drawn a conclusion. I don't know what the truth is. I've been reporting in a way. I mean, I I see you've taken a side that you you've chosen to believe the story that's being offered, and that's fine. A lot of people have. I'm not there yet. I don't I don't actively say that there's a pedophile ring. I don't say any of that. I'm just following the facts and we're not at the place where I can draw that conclusion. Well, no, I can draw the evidence that I'm seeing and the people who are speaking about it lead me toward this particular conclusion. And if counter evidence is presented that is not speculative, then I will change my conclusion because that's what I've done on this case. Until this memo came out, I was weighing toward the more extreme version of this theory. And you can look back at my tweets and what I've said about it. And then this came out and now my perspective has changed. So when the facts change and the people who are speaking I guess I'm just I'm just not that trusting of government. There are other facts. They said not credible. There's no credible evidence. They talked about um no what was the the qualifier they use on the client list. Um something like no persuasive client list or something. Megan I'm not I'm not that trusting of government either unless I know the exact people in government we're talking about. Okay. All I've said so far is I trust government. But do you believe that Dan has all the information? You believe Dan Bonino has everything? You believe he's seen all the SDNY had? You believe What about Julie Brown's claims about the number of data like the documents the Department of Homeland Security um flight logs on who was on his planes? Do you believe he has all that in his purview and he's said, "I've reviewed it all and none of it's persuasive." I don't believe that. I believe Dan's reviewed what's been made available to him by the pre-existing FBI and in there he hasn't come up with anything that proves Ebstein was murdered or found some child pedophile ring that's been covered up. That's fine. I'll accept his word and effectively Cash's word and Pam's word to some extent on that. But it doesn't explain all these other questions that existed prior to them taking office that have been raised by people like Julie Brown that have been raised by people like Pam Bondi before today. And I'm not satisfied. Again, I'm unsatisfied at the amount of information that we're getting. But if the question is, is there information being hidden now from Dan or Cash or Pam? Then I would like evidence that there's information hidden from them in the same way that I want them to be more transparent. Why is why is he asking for evidence from all sides? Some are you not persuaded by this that soundbite from Julie K. Brown, for example, like that that DHS would have more information. that FBI just on their vault alone has tons and tons of redacted information that you could see that they may or may not be able to see. I don't know. But that there's lots of information still out there or she's she's she's claiming that quote that the FBI does have all that information. Okay. So, do you think she's lying? I mean, do you think that like the redactions are not available to the FBI? I think the redactions are available to the FBI. So, so what? You were making the claim a moment ago that they they actually are not available to Pam or Dan. Well, that's my point. So, why don't they put them out? So like what why wouldn't they come out and say here are the documents we that we have. We've redacted the following information that this is a child's name. This is a victim's name but or where's the DHS account of who was on the Epstein plane. Where's the Allen Dersitz account of those names that I gave you and what role if any they played in the in this matter. None of that's been provided. I I agree with you should be more transparent conclusions. Right. Your conclusion is that they're covering something up and my conclusion is that there's wild incompetence happening at the level of the attorney general and that's the reason why Dan is upset. I I don't think I don't think you're I think you're trusting the conclusions of that memo and a decision made by our administration to move past this far too much. I mean, I'm proTrump. I'm a Trump supporter, but I think they've made a decision that they want to put this in the rear view. You think it's because there's absolutely no there there and you're crediting that claim and I have doubts about whether that's true. I mean that that's fine and again I'm open to doubts about whether that's true but I think that once you have the doubts about whether they are lying to you that's a different thing. Is it incompetence or lying? I mean that that really is the question is it not? You you don't think even the Trump administration is capable of lying to the public because they think it's for the greater good. They think there's a there's a solid reason to do it. I I mean I I'm wondering what they are lying about and what the lies would be. So again I think in your middle scenario You just answer my question. Do you think they're capable of doing it if they think it's for the greater good? Um, I think anybody is capable of lying if they think that it's for the greater good, of course. But I think that in order to answer the question of whether they are doing that, we would have to determine what greater good is being pursued and what the lie is. I think all this that's why some of us are still asking questions. Um, I mean, I'm not in the business of covering for any question. Megan Megan, not all the questions are the same. Asking a question about whether all the information has been released because there are figures who would be publicly humiliated because they were riding on Epste's plane. But there's no evidence the person was raping a child is not quite the same thing as some of the more outstanding claims, which is that the administration is covering up full scale for a child's sex operation. Right? Not all questions. Okay, that's fine. That's a debate you need to have with somebody else because no no one on this set is claiming that. All right, let's move on to point two, which is whether he's he was some sort of an agent and that's a possible reason why he got a sweetheart plea deal andor why to this day people aren't that interested in digging deep under the Jeffrey Epstein story. So there there's a lot of speculation about this. You mentioned Tucker. I'll just play what he said at Turning Point and we can take it from there. What the hell is this? You have the former Israeli prime minister living in your house. You have had all this contact with the foreign government. Were you working on behalf of MSAD? Were you running a blackmail operation on behalf of foreign government? And there's another one. S three. Play that followup. And I think the truth, for whatever it's worth, in case you're interested, is that the DOJ didn't release lots of incriminating sex videos with Ebstein and his billionaire pals because they don't have them. They don't have them because when the original search warrant was served, 2007, I think, it was basically designed to protect Epstein. The search warrant was written in such a way to make sure that the feds never got their hands on the actually incriminating evidence. The real question is why was he doing this? on whose behalf and where did the money come from? And I think the real answer is Jeffrey Ebstein was working on behalf of intel services, probably not American. And no one has ever gotten to the bottom of that because no one has ever tried. It's extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government. Now, no one's allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that that's naughty. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There's nothing anti-Semitic about saying. There's nothing even anti-Israel about saying that. I've spent my entire life pretty much in Washington where I knew and loved a number of people including one very close person who worked at CIA. That has never prohibited me from saying I think the CIA has done some horrible things. That doesn't make me a disloyal American. It doesn't make me anti-American in any sense. Okay. So many people believe that. You could hear the cheers in the audience when he said he believes Epstein was working for MSAD. I on my Twitter feed today laid out some of the evidence why people believe he was an agent. Um I don't know whether that's true. And if he was an agent, I don't know whether he was ours or he was MSAD or he was something else. But I know there's there's enough to sniff around on whether he was an agent. The the most persuasive piece of which is where to get all that money. I mean, nobody's been able to answer the question in following the money of how Jeffrey Epste earned all that dough. Why is it problematic for Tucker to say, "I think he was an agent. I think he worked for MSAD." I mean, Tucker can say whatever he wants, it's free country. I think that if if he's saying that he worked for Assad and that no one has looked into it and that he was running a child sex ring on behalf of MSAD and the evidence should exist for that to happen, then just say the administration is covering for MSAD. I mean, if you're that certain of it and you believe that that's the case, then presumably the case that you're making is that the administration is now working for MSAD and covering up a child sex ring. So, he can say that. That's fine. But I think he should then have the balls to say what Dave Smith said, which is that the Trump administration was covering for a child sex ring that was a blackmail scheme run by. If you want to actually say that, then say it, okay? And then provide evidence to that effect. Because the only evidence that I've seen related to Jeffrey Epstein and MSAD, so far as I am aware, is a secondhand quote from Vicky Ward at the Daily Beast, who I do not consider a verifiable source about Alex Azar, the original process. She was on Epste from the beginning, though. I mean, her being on Epstein from the beginning doesn't mean she's a credible source. She ran for the Daily Beast and she was arguing about a person who Yes. So what? Vanity Fair is a shitty publication. Like, okay, I'm just saying like that's fine. You can dislike Vicky Ward. I don't I don't I'm not running defense for her. But no, but the point is that the Alex Azar quote that she is making is not even from Alex Azar. It is a secondhand anonymous Alex. Thank you. Sorry. Alex Acasta, the the prosecutor who ended up being labor secretary. The Alex Aosta that quote was not from Alex Aosta. It was from a secondhand source and that said that he was told to shut down the investigation essentially because he was working for a uh for an intelligence agency. Right. That was that was that that quote. And then let me just give it exactly. I'll just give it exactly because we need to be precise. Um, so he she reported in Vanity Fair or she reported for Vanity Fair like a definitive Epstein article and then she updated it in in the Daily Beast in 2019 when um I think it was after Epstein died or it could have been when Trump nominated him. I'm probably when they did the investigation into the No, it had Yeah. Yeah. Right. Or so she updated he was already in office uh Aosta at this point. So she um she reported that Standby I tweeted out now I'm looking to find it. Okay. that she had spoken with a member of the Trump transition team uh when Trump was taking office who told her that when they talked to Acasta about possibly becoming the labor secretary, they said, "Is this Epstein thing, this settlement that you oversaw going to be a problem for us?" You know, cuz you're the guy who basically gave him that slap on the wrist. and that Acasta had told the Trump transition team that Ebstein quote belonged to intelligence end quote and that he'd been ordered to quote leave it alone end quote and that he'd quote been told to back off. He later was on the record, Ben, as saying Maine justice was the one who told him to settle that case and that they had approved of the Epstein plea deal. So that's him. We know that Maine justice did tell Alex Aosta to settle that case. What we don't know whether he in fact said all that stuff to the Trump transition team. Well, he he was asked about this at at a hearing. I believe a congressional hearing and he said that there are a lot of rumors out there and you shouldn't believe everything you read. I believe was was something close to the direct quote uh from the congressional it right Deb. Do we have Sorry. Stand by. We have it on camera. It was first asked uh it was a press conference on July 10th, 2019. And this is the first we know of that he was asked about Vicky Ward's report. Watch. Mr. Secretary, were you ever made aware at any point your handling of this case if Mr. Epstein was an intelligence asset of some sort? Um, so reporting to that effect. So, so, so there has there has been reporting to that effect and and let me say um there's been reporting to a lot of effects in in in this case uh not just now but over the years and and again I would you know I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact. Um this was a case that was brought by our office. that was brought based on the facts and and I look at that reporting and others. I I can't address it directly because of our uh our our guidelines. Um but I can tell you that that a lot of reporting is just going down rabbit holes. I'm sorry, but that's a non-denial denial and he never came out to deny it in any other way after Vicky Ward reported it. I'm not persuaded by his denial at all. Uh he did later tell the office of professional responsibility within the DOJ when he was asked during an investigation that he did not say that to the Trump transition team. So later outside of the public setting, he reportedly did deny Vicky Ward's reporting. But I have questions about that too because that's the Department of Justice investigating itself. And under this theory that Epstein was compromised and the DOJ knew it, the DOJ would have been the one to tell Alex Aosta to drop it. And then the DOJ would have been sitting down with Alex Aosta saying, "Did we tell you to drop it or didn't we?" So, I can see why people have doubts about that later testimony. Again, I don't know what's true, but that's a very weasly answer he just gave at that presser. I mean, that that's fair to say it's a weasly answer. It's also fair to say that the original quote was never confirmed by anybody on the record. Correct. So, I mean, like, at the very best, that one is is it's it's dicey. I mean like I think the best you can say about that particular claim is dicey both for and against. Right. And I I see why you could take away either conclusion. There's also is that fair? Yes. Yes. Look there's also the matter like I said of the money and there's also the question is super suspicious but I think that's really more about Leon Black signing him a check for like $160 million for unspecified financial services. Right. And then cla right. Exactly. Let me just make this other point then I'll give you the floor. Then I'll give you the floor. You know, there's this um former Israeli intel guy named Ari Ben Minaj. Well, he claims he is. The Israelis say he's not. Correct. Well, that was litigated and actually if you if you look up this guy's Wikipedia, it's actually quite interesting. Um but it appears he it appears he was it appears he was and there was this whole long trial in which they tried to disown him and it failed. They failed. So I think he is former in Israeli intel and this guy has come out to say Ebstein was a MSAD agent and that he this Ari Ben Minaj was the agent who handled him. Um others including Danny Yatam who ran the MSAD for three years say that's not true. And this morning we had um an Naftali Bennett come out publicly as a former Israeli prime minister saying I was with the MSAD and I mean the MSAD reported directly to me and I say to you with 100% certainty the accusation that Epstein worked for Israel or the MSAD running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false. Well, I mean, I actually followed up with with Bennett to to ask for more clarification on that. And what he actually told me is that MSAD has not run an operative against the United States or in the United States since Jonathan Pard was convicted in 1987 because really wants to steer clear of pissing off the United States. So, there's some speculation about whether Ebstein wasn't an agent but was like an asset, right? So asset is a really weird word in terms of intel um because he was also accused of being an asset for both the Saudis and and MI6, right? So there are multiple intelligence agencies for whom he could theoretically have been considered an asset. Asset is not necessarily by the legal definition somebody who is like working for a foreign government. It could be somebody who is giving information to a foreign government under a wide variety of opaces. Uh and so you know that that that's a lot vagger. Uh what we do know from I what what what we do know from the public statements is that he was not working for an American intelligence agency. The Israelis say he wasn't working for them. Now one of the weird sort of unfalsifiable aspects of this case is that if MSAD says somebody's not working for them, are they or are they not? Right. So so usually Well, same with our Well, right. Exactly. And so so this is kind of my problem with this case and why I keep begging for more same as you more transparency, more evidence. I tend to believe that the DOJ and FBI are correct in their evidentiary presentation. and you tend to not. But I think that we're coming to the same conclusion, which is release everything you got cuz I don't think anybody should be afraid of the answers. Since President Trump was sworn in, his administration has made enormous progress at a breakneck pace. But don't forget, while they're moving mountains for the good of the nation, you've got your own personal savings to worry about. And one of the best ways to look after your savings is through diversification, particularly with gold, like from Birch Gold Group. In the past 12 months, the value of gold has increased by 40%. OMG. Central banks continue to bolster demand for gold by buying in record quantities. Global instability and tension is high and birch gold makes owning physical gold extremely easy. Easily convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA in physical gold or buy some to store in your home safe. Just text MK to the number 9898998 and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information. With an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, take control of your savings today. Text MK to the number 989898. Thanks so much for watching. If you like what you just saw, hit the subscribe button for more clips and full episodes.