Speaker 1: Look, I can't get over the fact that Jeffrey Epstein's
Speaker 1: videotape is missing. How did it get deleted? Why is
Speaker 1: it deleted? Who deleted it? And who was in charge
Speaker 1: of the chain of command? These are questions that the
Speaker 1: media is not asking. These are questions that need to
Speaker 1: be asked. How in the world does something like this
Speaker 1: happen with such a high profile inmate? You understand that
Speaker 1: Things happen in prison. We all get that. We know
Speaker 1: that prison's a dangerous place. We understand that it's even
Speaker 1: more dangerous for people like Jeffrey Epstein. To remedy that situation,
Speaker 1: the government had him put away in his own wing, basically.
Speaker 1: But yet, in their great infinite wisdom, they put him
Speaker 1: in a jail cell with Nicholas Tartaglione, a big, gigantic man...
Speaker 1: who was being charged with three homicides in connection to
Speaker 1: a drug deal gone bad. And somebody, in their infinite wisdom,
Speaker 1: thought that it would be a good idea to put
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein in the cell with this guy. And then
Speaker 1: you wonder... Did Jeffrey Epstein really try to kill himself
Speaker 1: that first time? According to everybody that knows Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 1: that was talking to him and around him, said that
Speaker 1: he was upbeat, ready to fight the case, thinking that
Speaker 1: he might get another plea deal. Nobody said he was suicidal.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, he's in the cell with Tartaglione.
Speaker 1: He gets attacked or he tries to attempt suicide. He
Speaker 1: says he was attacked. We don't know. Nobody's come forward
Speaker 1: and told us the truth. And now, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: when that video is supposed to be provided, the video
Speaker 1: of that attempt, that alleged attempt, and what happened in
Speaker 1: that cell is gone. Now, how can anyone trust what
Speaker 1: the government has to say when we see everything that
Speaker 1: we have seen in this case? The government has done
Speaker 1: nothing but lie and obfuscate the whole entire time. And
Speaker 1: I honestly believe that the reason they charged those two
Speaker 1: guards is simply so that they could have the smoke
Speaker 1: screen and they could have it so that nobody could
Speaker 1: really get any questions in this case because of the
Speaker 1: ongoing investigation. I think it was a calculated move and
Speaker 1: we all know how shrewd they are. We all know
Speaker 1: how the government rolls. So to think that they wouldn't
Speaker 1: do something like that, well, I think that's a bit naive.
Speaker 1: So we're going to jump into an article tonight from
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, and I think it's going to be
Speaker 1: a good one. It's by Cheryl K. Chumley, and the
Speaker 1: headline is, Jeffrey Epstein's demise was not at his own hands.
Speaker 1: And it's very rare we see an outlet like the
Speaker 1: Washington Times dip their toe into those waters, right, saying
Speaker 1: something like that. But in this opinion piece, Cheryl K.
Speaker 1: Chumley looks to do exactly that. So we're going to
Speaker 1: dive right into this article, but first... If you'd like
Speaker 1: to contact me, you can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com.
Speaker 1: That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. Alright, let's get into the article,
Speaker 1: shall we? Of course Jeffrey Epstein was murdered. And there's
Speaker 1: no reason to whisper around that. It's impossible to conclude otherwise.
Speaker 1: Especially in the face of the latest announcement about the
Speaker 1: final hours of the jailed convicted sex offender's life. That
Speaker 1: video footage of his first suicide attempt had been advertently destroyed.
Speaker 1: It no longer exists, said federal prosecutors. That's just not curious.
Speaker 1: It's beyond the pale, outrageously suspicious. Absolutely 100%. I feel
Speaker 1: the same exact way. There is no way that this
Speaker 1: evidence should not have been preserved. And if it wasn't preserved,
Speaker 1: then everybody who was involved with this evidence, whoever was
Speaker 1: involved in the chain of custody, needs to be arrested
Speaker 1: and needs to be investigated. Because this is egregious, folks.
Speaker 1: This is absolutely unacceptable. That's not just curious. It's beyond
Speaker 1: the pale, outrageously suspicious. Let's just take a look at
Speaker 1: the facts. Epstein was arrested in July on sex trafficking
Speaker 1: charges and jailed at the MCC in New York City.
Speaker 1: That was after a long and wildly horrible life that
Speaker 1: included a guilty plea of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution,
Speaker 1: for which he served time. A plea deal tied to
Speaker 1: sex offense accusations from dozens of females that led to
Speaker 1: his registration as a sex offender. More allegations of sex offenses.
Speaker 1: More reported links to the seedy underbelly of the sex
Speaker 1: trade world. And ultimately, a July 6, 2019 arrest at
Speaker 1: an airport in New Jersey on sex trafficking charges. And,
Speaker 1: oh yes, ties to some of the world's best known,
Speaker 1: most recognized, most powerful faces. And about him getting arrested
Speaker 1: at the airport, I'm not a fan of that. I
Speaker 1: really wish that they would have kicked in his door
Speaker 1: and they would have perp walked him correctly the way
Speaker 1: they do everybody else. I think they gave him too
Speaker 1: much dignity. Why is there no pictures of Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: getting arrested? Every time there's somebody high profile getting arrested,
Speaker 1: we have pictures of it. We have no pictures of
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein in the perp walk, do we? I wonder why.
Speaker 1: While they're While there, in jail, on July 25th, Epstein
Speaker 1: reportedly attempted suicide. So jail authorities placed him on suicide watch.
Speaker 1: That meant jail authorities were supposed to watch him, survey him,
Speaker 1: walk by him on a regular basis, just to make
Speaker 1: sure that he didn't commit suicide. Weeks later, on August 10th,
Speaker 1: Epstein was found dead in his cell of what authorities
Speaker 1: of the New York City Medical Examiner's Office reported as
Speaker 1: suicide by hanging. Well, we all know how that looks, right?
Speaker 1: We all know that without evidence, nobody is going to
Speaker 1: believe this, okay? Nobody is believing it. Not the penguins
Speaker 1: in Antarctica, not the polar bears in the great Arctic North,
Speaker 1: not the camels in the desert or the fish in
Speaker 1: the sea. Nobody believes it. Except, a forensic pathologist hired
Speaker 1: by Epstein's family said in a 60 Minutes interview that
Speaker 1: physical evidence, i.e. strange fractures in Epstein's neck, indicate murder,
Speaker 1: not suicide. There were fractures of the left, the right
Speaker 1: thyroid cartilage, and the left hyoid bone, said forensic pathologist
Speaker 1: Michael Bodden. I have never seen three fractures like this
Speaker 1: in a suicidal hanging. This guy's been doing this for
Speaker 1: a long time, folks, and he has never seen three
Speaker 1: fractures like this in a suicidal hanging. Going over 1,000
Speaker 1: jail hangings, suicides in the New York City state prisons
Speaker 1: over the past 40 to 50 years, no one, that
Speaker 1: is no one, folks, zero, squat, squangilly, nobody had three fractures.
Speaker 1: Except the attorney for Epstein's cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, a former
Speaker 1: police officer accused of killing four, said he specifically asked
Speaker 1: jail officials to preserve all evidence from the July 23rd
Speaker 1: attempted suicide, alleged attempted suicide, including video, which they didn't. Well,
Speaker 1: I wonder why they didn't. They didn't preserve the video
Speaker 1: because they didn't like what was on it. That's what
Speaker 1: I'm working off of, all right? That's my theory. That's
Speaker 1: my hypothesis at this point. And it's up to them
Speaker 1: to prove it differently, all right? The burden is on
Speaker 1: them at this point because all they've done is lie.
Speaker 1: All they've done is obfuscate. All they've done is throw
Speaker 1: up smoke screens. And I'll tell you what, I'm pretty
Speaker 1: tired of it. I am pretty tired of their deception.
Speaker 1: I am pretty tired of their outright lies. And I
Speaker 1: am certainly tired... of Ghislaine Maxwell still walking the streets.
Speaker 1: FBI agents raiding Epstein's homes in Manhattan and the U.S.
Speaker 1: Virgin Islands for evidence of sex offenses and, undoubtedly, trails
Speaker 1: that could implicate others in these crimes, confiscated computers, pictures,
Speaker 1: and computer disks. A vast trove of lewd photographs of
Speaker 1: young-looking girls, including hundreds of meticulously labeled nude pictures, locked
Speaker 1: in a safe, according to federal court documents, as USA
Speaker 1: Today reported it. All right, so are we ever going
Speaker 1: to get to see this stuff? I highly doubt it.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of other people could be implicated in Epstein's offense,
Speaker 1: CNBC wrote. Except the files were sealed, as Courthouse News notes.
Speaker 1: Isn't that funny? Isn't it just another coincidence that these
Speaker 1: files were sealed? Why are they sealed? Jeffrey Epstein's dead.
Speaker 1: Unseal these files. Everybody wants to know what's going on.
Speaker 1: And while you're at it, you bunch of sick, depraved bastards,
Speaker 1: while you're at it, we want you to unseal the
Speaker 1: congressional files as well to see which one of them
Speaker 1: used money, public money, to pay sexual harassment suits, okay?
Speaker 1: Can we see all of it? Can you get on
Speaker 1: top of that? Or no? One set of rules for them,
Speaker 1: another set of rules for us, folks. The mystery ratchets. Epstein,
Speaker 1: in 2008, received such a curiously light 13-month jail sentence
Speaker 1: that put an end to a federal sex abuse investigation
Speaker 1: into allegations made by 40 or so females that members
Speaker 1: of Congress widened eyes in surprise. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska,
Speaker 1: for instance, he wrote, Jeffrey Epstein is a child rapist,
Speaker 1: and there's not a single mom or dad in America
Speaker 1: who shouldn't be horrified by the fact that he received
Speaker 1: such a pathetically soft sentence. Good for Ben Sasse. Now
Speaker 1: let's see your words go into action, Senator Sasse, okay?
Speaker 1: Because words are wind. We're going to need to see
Speaker 1: some action behind that. Epstein, by any other name, wouldn't
Speaker 1: have gotten off so lightly. Then we come to this,
Speaker 1: the latest. The surveillance video from outside Epstein's jail cell
Speaker 1: from the day of his first alleged suicide attempt and
Speaker 1: it's and the fact that it's non-existent because authorities inadvertently
Speaker 1: preserve video from the wrong tier and as a result
Speaker 1: video from outside the defendant's cell no longer exists what
Speaker 1: does that even mean how in the hell do you
Speaker 1: preserve video from the wrong tier Okay, that means they
Speaker 1: didn't know what cell he was in. How could you
Speaker 1: be watching him to make sure he doesn't get hurt
Speaker 1: if you don't even know what cell he's in? Another except,
Speaker 1: another hmm moment. There are more curiosities, more improprieties, more
Speaker 1: red flag moments dotting all along the paths of Epstein's
Speaker 1: life and death, including, but not limited to, ABC's Amy
Speaker 1: Robach's hot mic moment released by Project Veritas, in which
Speaker 1: she expressed frustration at the killing of her investigative report
Speaker 1: into Epstein. But here's one that really zings from the
Speaker 1: New York Post just hours after reports that the video
Speaker 1: of Epstein's cell area was erroneously wiped from existence. A
Speaker 1: bit more news. Photos obtained by the Post on Thursday
Speaker 1: show former President Bill Clinton posing aboard Jeffrey Epstein's private jet,
Speaker 1: dubbed the Lolita Express, with the sex fiend's alleged procuress,
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell, and one of his alleged accusers. Procurus? No,
Speaker 1: how about... mastermind, fellow mastermind, and fellow rapist, because that's
Speaker 1: what Ghislaine Maxwell is. Epstein's been connected to everyone in
Speaker 1: positions of high power from presidents to princes. A pertinent detail? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Especially when considered in the light of all the other
Speaker 1: curiosities surrounding his death. For sure. For sure, you have
Speaker 1: to consider his associations. You have to consider who he
Speaker 1: paled around with. And the most important thing to consider, folks,
Speaker 1: is that he was running a blackmail operation where he
Speaker 1: had dossiers and obviously a treasure trove of information on
Speaker 1: all of these people. The fact that Epstein died by
Speaker 1: suicide in his jail cell after a failed first suicide
Speaker 1: after they had placed him on suicide watch doesn't justify logic.
Speaker 1: It strains even the most tortured logic. There's just no
Speaker 1: way this guy died at his own hands. Bravo, Cheryl Chumley. Bravo.
Speaker 1: I agree. There is no way that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself,
Speaker 1: not with the evidence that has been presented. I am
Speaker 1: more than willing to be convinced that he did kill himself, however.
Speaker 1: If the evidence points that way. So far, the only
Speaker 1: evidence we have, folks, is evidence that points us directly
Speaker 1: to criminal homicide by strangulation. Look, I'm no examiner, I'm
Speaker 1: no medical examiner, I'm no doctor, okay? But Dr. Bodden is,
Speaker 1: and some of these other doctors that have talked about
Speaker 1: this are, and from what they say, from what they
Speaker 1: have seen, this looks like a murder, not a suicide.
Speaker 1: So the official narrative, let's go ahead and throw that out.
Speaker 1: The government's going to need to do a better job, folks, okay? Mr. Barr,
Speaker 1: the rest of your henchmen, you're going to need to
Speaker 1: do a better job to convince us because as of
Speaker 1: right now, we do not believe anything that you're telling us, okay?
Speaker 1: Point blank, period. Folks, I don't know about you, but
Speaker 1: this is just enough to make my head spin. This
Speaker 1: whole entire non-preservation of the video footage is such, such
Speaker 1: a slap in the face, not only to the taxpayers,
Speaker 1: but to the victims. It is such a slap in
Speaker 1: the face. And the government should apologize publicly to each
Speaker 1: one of these girls because of this. And I mean that.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
Speaker 1: at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. If you
Speaker 1: would like... What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode
Speaker 1: of the Epstein Chronicles. If there's one thing that Americans
Speaker 1: can agree on these days, it's that they don't agree
Speaker 1: on much. But one topic that the vast majority of
Speaker 1: us agree on is that the powerful... have a different
Speaker 1: set of rules in this country, and that they get
Speaker 1: a pass when they commit crimes. And according to a
Speaker 1: new poll by Reuters, is telling us that no matter
Speaker 1: what your political affiliation is, you're not happy with the
Speaker 1: way things are going. And I think that the only
Speaker 1: place where there's support for the way the administration's handling
Speaker 1: these files is online. Because I've yet to meet somebody
Speaker 1: in person that's happy about how this is going down.
Speaker 1: And I'm not talking about people with Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about people that voted for Trump. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about people that have supported him for all these years.
Speaker 1: And those people certainly aren't happy that Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: the administration is covering this up. And I think that's
Speaker 1: something that we should exploit. I think that we should
Speaker 1: be working to build a gigantic coalition of people who
Speaker 1: are disgusted by this and who are demanding justice. And
Speaker 1: I don't think it should matter what your political affiliation is.
Speaker 1: If you're disgusted by what's going on, and you're disgusted
Speaker 1: by the lies being told to us by the current administration,
Speaker 1: then welcome to the team. Because at this point, we're
Speaker 1: going to need a very large coalition to challenge the
Speaker 1: bullshit and the narratives that are being pitched by the
Speaker 1: White House and their allies. So that signals to me
Speaker 1: that it's time to turn up the heat. And according
Speaker 1: to these poll numbers and according to the eye test,
Speaker 1: I think that we have the numbers on our side.
Speaker 1: And at this point, we might have to think about
Speaker 1: organizing in one way or the other. And that's coming
Speaker 1: from somebody that doesn't even like to collaborate with people.
Speaker 1: But this is not a battle that one person's going
Speaker 1: to win. It's going to take all of us collectively
Speaker 1: to continue pushing for full transparency and for justice. And
Speaker 1: anybody who's standing in the way of that obviously has
Speaker 1: some sort of motivation to keep what Jeffrey Epstein was
Speaker 1: up to secret and private. So the question is, what
Speaker 1: is that motivation? Is it money? Is it status? Is
Speaker 1: it you were involved? It can only be one of
Speaker 1: a few things, right? Because most normal people take a
Speaker 1: look at this and they are absolutely disgusted. So today
Speaker 1: we have an article from Reuters and the headline, Americans
Speaker 1: believe Epstein files show the powerful get a pass according
Speaker 1: to a Reuters and Ipsos poll. This article was authored
Speaker 1: by Jason Lang. Americans believe that the wealthy and powerful
Speaker 1: are rarely held accountable according to a new Reuters poll
Speaker 1: found after the release of millions of records on the
Speaker 1: late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's connections in elite U.S. business
Speaker 1: and political circles. I think most people knew this But
Speaker 1: this is a little bit different, right? Because you can
Speaker 1: see it for yourself. It's one thing hearing me blab
Speaker 1: about it for years. It's another thing to see the receipts.
Speaker 1: Because when something is this devious, when people are this evil,
Speaker 1: it's hard to wrap your mind around it. I get it.
Speaker 1: And it's not like I had some kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: inside track here. I just did the legwork. I've looked
Speaker 1: at all the court documents, I've looked at the testimony,
Speaker 1: and you start putting it together. And when you start
Speaker 1: putting together all the circumstantial evidence, what you have is
Speaker 1: a gigantic case. And that's how every single investigation in
Speaker 1: history has been put together and has been run. But
Speaker 1: you don't see that here. You don't see the circumstantial
Speaker 1: evidence piling up. In fact, what you see is people
Speaker 1: trying to discount that circumstantial evidence and and act like
Speaker 1: it's not a smoking gun. Well, I have news for you.
Speaker 1: There's not going to be a smoking gun, so it's
Speaker 1: going to be up to you to put everything together,
Speaker 1: weigh the evidence for what it is, and then decide
Speaker 1: if you believe the allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was a
Speaker 1: human trafficker and somebody that was engaging as a middleman
Speaker 1: and fixer for a lot of powerful people around the world.
Speaker 1: And if you don't want to believe that, that's cool.
Speaker 1: I'm not here to convince anybody of shit. I think
Speaker 1: the evidence speaks for itself. And I see all these
Speaker 1: people out here talking about, oh, debate me. Oh, Michael
Speaker 1: Tracy and Dave Smith should have a debate. About what?
Speaker 1: What is there to debate? This isn't the topic for that.
Speaker 1: You guys want to debate fucking Iran? Cool, go for it.
Speaker 1: You want to debate some culture war bullshit? Great. We're
Speaker 1: talking about real people here. Young ladies whose lives were destroyed.
Speaker 1: And I also want you to keep in mind that
Speaker 1: the women that you see coming forward, they're only a
Speaker 1: small representation of the women who were abused. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of women and girls that are never going to
Speaker 1: come forward. So you can't look at one survivor's story
Speaker 1: and transpose that to the next survivor. It's all unique.
Speaker 1: They all had their own experiences, their own nightmares. And
Speaker 1: what one might have went through, the other might not have.
Speaker 1: So that's why I find it so disgusting when you
Speaker 1: see people out here saying, Oh, these survivors were a
Speaker 1: part of it. Oh, they were human traffickers themselves. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you have the documentation on over a thousand girls. You
Speaker 1: can prove that. Oh, no, you can't. Right. So shut
Speaker 1: your yap. And isn't it interesting? The same people that
Speaker 1: are so worried about these disgusting ass. perverts and their
Speaker 1: identities being sprayed across the media they don't have the
Speaker 1: same concerns about the survivors right now those girls are
Speaker 1: all grifters now they're all just looking for a bag
Speaker 1: none of this happened Jeffrey Epstein great dude anybody talking
Speaker 1: like that Anybody who is being contrarian just to be
Speaker 1: contrarian is an absolute dickhead. There's no debate needed. You
Speaker 1: have no idea what you're talking about. You're just popping
Speaker 1: off at the lip because it's driving some engagement and
Speaker 1: because you think you're going to score some points with
Speaker 1: the Epstein administration. Because look, it's one thing to have
Speaker 1: serious questions and to pursue a serious investigation and try
Speaker 1: and punch holes in what people have been putting forth.
Speaker 1: And I totally agree with that. People should be punching
Speaker 1: holes in what we're talking about. Every angle should be covered.
Speaker 1: But there's a way to do that without being an
Speaker 1: absolute piece of shit. I mean, we're talking about real
Speaker 1: people here. And when you just start labeling people all
Speaker 1: across the board as this, that, or the other thing,
Speaker 1: it's not going to end up working out well for you.
Speaker 1: And if I was one of these survivors and these
Speaker 1: dickhead pundits were out here talking all kinds of stupid,
Speaker 1: I'd sue them. Everybody loves to sue, right? I'd sue them.
Speaker 1: Imagine what kind of jerk-off you have to be to
Speaker 1: try and put these girls who were abused in the
Speaker 1: same category as somebody like Sarah Kellen Vickers or somebody
Speaker 1: like Adriana Ross. It is just absurd. Some 69% of
Speaker 1: responders in the four-day poll, which concluded on Monday... said
Speaker 1: their views were captured very well or extremely well by
Speaker 1: a statement that the Epstein files show that powerful people
Speaker 1: in the U.S. are rarely held accountable by their actions.
Speaker 1: Another 7% said that statement described their views somewhat well,
Speaker 1: while 11% said it didn't reflect their thinking. Among Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats, more than 80% said the statement described their
Speaker 1: thinking at least somewhat well, I think this is one
Speaker 1: of those topics that transcends politics for the most part. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, there is going to be people who are
Speaker 1: so dug in to their ideological camp that they can't
Speaker 1: find the forest through the trees. So they're just going
Speaker 1: to go with whatever the party tells them to do.
Speaker 1: And there's always a group of people such as that.
Speaker 1: And it happens on both sides. Those are the loyalists, right?
Speaker 1: The base. And that's what, roughly 20% or so? No
Speaker 1: matter what we say, no matter what evidence is produced,
Speaker 1: they're not going to believe that Donald Trump is covering
Speaker 1: this up, no matter what. But I think that the
Speaker 1: vast majority of Americans, no matter their political affiliation, are
Speaker 1: disgusted by what's going on here. And they know for
Speaker 1: a fact that the Epstein class gets away with all
Speaker 1: kinds of bullshit all the time. Under congressional orders, the U.S.
Speaker 1: Justice Department has released trove after trove of documents that
Speaker 1: tie the late financier, pedophile, to prominent people in politics, finance, academia,
Speaker 1: and business, both before and after he pleaded guilty in
Speaker 1: 2008 to prostitution charges, including soliciting an underage girl. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all that happened. One girl. And this is where
Speaker 1: people are intellectually dishonest about this story. oh, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: it was only one girl. No big deal. There's no
Speaker 1: serial predation going on. But if you look at the
Speaker 1: documents and you know the story, you know that that's false.
Speaker 1: And you know that there was over 40 young girls,
Speaker 1: high school age, who came forward. And of course, people
Speaker 1: will say, well, a lot of those girls, they didn't
Speaker 1: want to prosecute Epstein. Yeah, they got paid off or
Speaker 1: their families got paid off. We have to be honest
Speaker 1: about what happened here. What, you think we're just going
Speaker 1: to sweep it under the rug and act like Epstein
Speaker 1: really wasn't guilty of what he was doing? I mean,
Speaker 1: come on. If that's what you're looking for, you're in
Speaker 1: the wrong place. The scandal has proven a persistent political
Speaker 1: headache for President Trump, who long fanned the flames of
Speaker 1: suspicion around Epstein, and has been dogged by criticism that
Speaker 1: his administration was failing to fully disclose Epstein's All the U.S.
Speaker 1: government knew about the case. Well, that's because they were
Speaker 1: and are and continue to cover this up. And it's
Speaker 1: not even a debate, at least not in my mind.
Speaker 1: What we're seeing here is a cover-up in real time.
Speaker 1: And it's wild to behold. And the fact that so
Speaker 1: many people are willing to go along with it is crazy.
Speaker 1: The disclosures started to cause the downfall of prominent people,
Speaker 1: executives at Goldman Sachs, and Hyatt Hotels have resigned. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: others have retained powerful posts. Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Nutlick,
Speaker 1: I mean, Lutnick, apparently visited Epstein's private island for lunch
Speaker 1: in 2012 and invited him to a fundraiser in 2015
Speaker 1: for Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic rival in the 2016 presidential
Speaker 1: election email show. How much more evidence do you need
Speaker 1: that it's a big-ass club and you're not invited. The
Speaker 1: whole thing is rotten, both sides of the aisle. Dr.
Speaker 1: Mehmet Oz, Trump Administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare
Speaker 1: and Medical Services, emailed an invitation to a Valentine's Day
Speaker 1: party in 2016 to Epstein, the Justice Department document show. Ah,
Speaker 1: what do you know, another reality TV star in our government. Boy,
Speaker 1: isn't that nice. Imagine thinking that Dr. Oz... is an
Speaker 1: authority on anything, maybe we should have Jerry Springer as
Speaker 1: social media manager. Neither Nutlick nor Oz is accused of wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: The Republican president, who socialized extensively with Epstein in the
Speaker 1: 1990s and 2000s, has denied any knowledge of the financier's
Speaker 1: crimes and says he broke off ties in the early
Speaker 1: 2000s before Epstein's plea deal. While Americans generally have low
Speaker 1: expectations that elites will be held accountable, they are somewhat
Speaker 1: split among partisan lines on how much longer the nation
Speaker 1: should dwell on the Epstein affair. Asked if the views
Speaker 1: were well described by the statement that it's time for
Speaker 1: the country to move on from talking about the Epstein files,
Speaker 1: 67% of Republican respondents in the polls said that they
Speaker 1: captured their thinking at least somewhat while only 21% of
Speaker 1: Democrats said the same. Well, because Republicans feel like it's
Speaker 1: politically damaging for them. Let's be honest. They had no
Speaker 1: problem talking about this previously. Hillary Clinton this, Bill Clinton that,
Speaker 1: the island, Tom Hanks, adrenochrome, everyone's being eaten, the whole thing.
Speaker 1: But now, when their worst fears are realized, ah, well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's really not that big a deal. Let
Speaker 1: me explain. We don't want your explanations. What we want
Speaker 1: is justice. The Reuters poll conducted online and nationwide gathered
Speaker 1: responses from 1,177 U.S. adults and had a margin of
Speaker 1: error of 3 percentage points. Now, of course, what they'll
Speaker 1: say is, oh, these polls are never right. They're all skewered.
Speaker 1: But I think that this is a good representation of
Speaker 1: how people feel. People don't think that anything's going to
Speaker 1: happen here. And that anyone's going to be held accountable.
Speaker 1: And why should they? History has shown us that people
Speaker 1: like this always find a way to wiggle off the hook.
Speaker 1: And look, I get it. I understand the cynicism. And
Speaker 1: I think that it's well placed. I mean, how many
Speaker 1: times do we see powerful people end up getting off
Speaker 1: or getting a slap on the wrist? Meanwhile, the rest
Speaker 1: of us, we have to play by the rules, right?
Speaker 1: So when I talk about a two-tier justice system, this
Speaker 1: is what I'm talking about. And it's not that the
Speaker 1: American people as a whole don't understand it or don't
Speaker 1: see it. It's that they think that we can't do
Speaker 1: anything about it. And that's because we haven't in the past.
Speaker 1: And they know the strategy has always been just to
Speaker 1: wait it out. Because they know that the populace is
Speaker 1: going to move on to the next disaster, to the
Speaker 1: next issue. But I don't see that trending this way
Speaker 1: this time. And I think that if they're relying on
Speaker 1: people being exhausted and people getting bored and They're going
Speaker 1: to be sorely disappointed. Now, does that mean that we're
Speaker 1: going to end up in a place where there is
Speaker 1: justice and full transparency? I don't know. But I think
Speaker 1: it's worth fighting for. And I'll be damned if I
Speaker 1: go quietly into the night. Because if these scumbags want
Speaker 1: to fight, they're going to get it. All of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another
Speaker 1: episode of Of the Epstein Chronicles. The party told you
Speaker 1: to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It
Speaker 1: was their final, most essential command. George Orwell, 1984. And
Speaker 1: that quote from Orwell does not endure because it's literary,
Speaker 1: but because it's diagnostic. It describes the final stage of power,
Speaker 1: when authority no longer persuades, but commands perception itself. When
Speaker 1: a government tells citizens to doubt their eyes and ears,
Speaker 1: it's no longer governing, it's conditioning. It's not rhetoric, it's
Speaker 1: a method refined through decades of political psychology. The instruction
Speaker 1: is simple, reality is negotiable if the institution says so.
Speaker 1: Once that principle is accepted, no evidence can threaten power.
Speaker 1: The citizen is becomes an echo chamber for official narrative.
Speaker 1: Truth ceases to exist as an external standard. And what
Speaker 1: remains is obedience disguised as skepticism. Orwell didn't predict tyranny
Speaker 1: by tanks. He predicted tyranny by denial. And that moment, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: is no longer theoretical. We now live in an era
Speaker 1: where video evidence is dismissed with straight faces and coordinated
Speaker 1: talking points. Officials do not argue the footage. They deny
Speaker 1: its relevance. They don't dispute what occurred, they reframe what occurred.
Speaker 1: The public's not meant to be convinced, only exhausted. Because
Speaker 1: confusion is cheaper than persuasion and more durable than honesty.
Speaker 1: Once doubt becomes habitual, accountability becomes impossible. The citizen learns
Speaker 1: to mistrust even their own judgment. Institutions then become the
Speaker 1: sole interpreters of reality. Power no longer fears exposure because
Speaker 1: exposure is declared meaningless. The system functions not by hiding facts,
Speaker 1: but by dissolving them. That is the stage that we
Speaker 1: have entered. Now this practice is not new, but its
Speaker 1: brazenness is unprecedented. Previously officials at least attempted coherence. Now
Speaker 1: contradiction itself is wielded as authority. One day the video
Speaker 1: is irrelevant, the next day it never existed, the third
Speaker 1: day it proves the opposite. The public is expected to
Speaker 1: adapt instantly without noticing the shift. Memory becomes the enemy
Speaker 1: of compliance. Citizens who remember are labeled dangerous, and those
Speaker 1: who question are told they misunderstand. Those who persist are
Speaker 1: dismissed as extremists. The purpose is not to lie convincingly,
Speaker 1: but to erode the expectation of consistency. When no narrative
Speaker 1: lasts longer than a news cycle, none can be challenged.
Speaker 1: That is institutional self-defense. Now, the insult embedded in the
Speaker 1: strategy can't be overstated, It assumes intellectual fragility in the population.
Speaker 1: It presumes citizens cannot process direct sensory information without guidance.
Speaker 1: It reduces adults to children who must be told what
Speaker 1: they saw. It treats the electorate not as participants but
Speaker 1: as liabilities. And the contempt is visible in the language chosen.
Speaker 1: Phrases like out of context become shields against plain meaning.
Speaker 1: Complexity becomes an excuse for contradiction. Misinformation becomes a label
Speaker 1: for inconvenient footage. The insult lies in expecting gratitude for
Speaker 1: being deceived. That expectation reveals how power now views the public.
Speaker 1: Not as a sovereign, but a substrate. If they can't
Speaker 1: tell the truth about what appears plainly on the screen,
Speaker 1: then nothing they say about hidden systems deserves trust. And
Speaker 1: I don't think that's cynicism. I think it's logic. Transparency
Speaker 1: is tested first, where verification is easy. When institutions fail
Speaker 1: that test, secrecy becomes unbounded. The Epstein case exists entirely
Speaker 1: within that domain of secrecy. It depends on documents, sealed proceedings,
Speaker 1: destroyed records, missing footage, and institutional discretion. Every critical fact
Speaker 1: is mediated by agencies already proven willing to deny visible reality,
Speaker 1: and that alone should terrify any rational observer. A system
Speaker 1: that lies about cameras will certainly lie about files. A
Speaker 1: system that lies about footage will lie about autopsies. A
Speaker 1: system that lies about timing will lie about networks. The
Speaker 1: burden of proof now lies entirely on the institutions that
Speaker 1: have squandered their credibility. And what makes the Epstein matter
Speaker 1: so uniquely revealing is not the crime, but the protection.
Speaker 1: Crimes occur in every society, but protection reveals hierarchy. The
Speaker 1: question is not who abused, but who insulated. The question
Speaker 1: is not what happened, but who decided what would never
Speaker 1: be known. This is where narrative control becomes existential. If
Speaker 1: the public ever reconstructs the full architecture of protection, multiple
Speaker 1: institutions collapse simultaneously. Intelligence services, financial networks, prosecutors, judges, politicians,
Speaker 1: and donors converge in the same silence. That convergence cannot
Speaker 1: survive daylight. Therefore, daylight must be declared unreliable. Video must
Speaker 1: be questioned. Testimony must be framed. Documents must be delayed.
Speaker 1: Delay becomes the final form of denial. Time becomes the
Speaker 1: last firewall. The Department of Justice now operates in a
Speaker 1: credibility vacuum of its own making. It speaks from a
Speaker 1: position not of authority, but of damaged inheritance. Every unexplained
Speaker 1: redaction compounds prior suspicion. Every delayed release strengthens the inference
Speaker 1: of manipulation. Every refusal to answer invites reconstruction from fragments.
Speaker 1: This is not paranoia. It's Bayesian reasoning. When institutions withhold
Speaker 1: data repeatedly in high-stake cases, probability shifts towards misconduct. The
Speaker 1: refusal to comply with transparency statutes only accelerates that shift.
Speaker 1: Silence is no longer neutral. It's evidentiary. And the DOJ
Speaker 1: does not understand this new epidemic environment. And it's behaving
Speaker 1: as if deference still exists. Breaking news, boys, it does not. Listen,
Speaker 1: administrations rise and fall, but institutional habits endure, and now
Speaker 1: narrative management is embedded across agencies as routine practice. Press
Speaker 1: secretaries no longer clarify, they preempt. Spokespersons no longer inform,
Speaker 1: they neutralize. Language becomes a weapon to blur causation and responsibility.
Speaker 1: Passive constructions erase actors. Process language replaces outcome language. Words
Speaker 1: like review and assessment replace accountability. The public's trained to
Speaker 1: accept indefinite procedure and place a resolution, and this creates
Speaker 1: the illusion of motion without consequence. Power survives not by
Speaker 1: solving scandals, but by proceduralizing them to death. Epstein's case
Speaker 1: is the most visible example of that technique. It's been
Speaker 1: buried under motions, committees, and calendar pages. And look, historians
Speaker 1: will indeed study this error, but not as a mystery.
Speaker 1: They won't ask how the lies were told, but why
Speaker 1: they were tolerated. They'll trace the erosion of epistemic confidence
Speaker 1: across decades. They'll note how media repetition replaced verification. They'll
Speaker 1: analyze how political tribes defended their own lies more fiercely
Speaker 1: than shared the truth. They'll observe how outrage was monetized
Speaker 1: while accountability was deferred. They'll document how institutions exploited polarization
Speaker 1: to escape scrutiny. They'll record how public fatigue became the
Speaker 1: ultimate shield. And they'll conclude that the collapse began not
Speaker 1: with violence but with narrative capture. And what they'll see
Speaker 1: is that disbelief became a civic habit. And my friends,
Speaker 1: that is how republics decay. The snake oil salesman does
Speaker 1: not succeed because the product works. He succeeds because the
Speaker 1: audience wants relief more than the truth. Modern grifters do
Speaker 1: not promise cures. They promise belonging. They sell certainty in
Speaker 1: an uncertain world. Institutions now mimic that strategy. They don't explain.
Speaker 1: They reassure. They don't disclose, they comfort. They don't correct,
Speaker 1: they redirect. And the public becomes addicted to narrative coherence
Speaker 1: even when it contradicts the evidence. Once coherence matters more
Speaker 1: than accuracy, deception becomes stabilizing. That is the moral inversion
Speaker 1: at the heart of this moment. Lies are justified as
Speaker 1: social glue. Truth is framed as destabilization. Power then claims
Speaker 1: the right to manage perception for the greater good. This
Speaker 1: is not merely political dysfunction. Instead, it's epistemological collapse. A
Speaker 1: society cannot function when reality is contested by decree. Law
Speaker 1: depends on facts. Justice depends on evidence. Democracy depends on
Speaker 1: shared perception. When those foundations fracture, institutions become theatrical. Trials
Speaker 1: become performances, investigations. They become rituals. And oversight, well, that
Speaker 1: becomes theater. and the Epstein files exemplify the decay. Each
Speaker 1: release is partial, delayed, curated, and defensive. Each explanation contradicts
Speaker 1: the last. Each promise evaporates under procedural fog. The case
Speaker 1: no longer seeks truth, it seeks survivability, and that alone
Speaker 1: defines its moral failure. Now, one must understand the psychological
Speaker 1: mechanics involved. Repetition erodes skepticism faster than argument. Denial delivered
Speaker 1: calmly feels more credible than truth delivered angrily. Authority is
Speaker 1: now performed through tone rather than substance. Visual contradiction is
Speaker 1: reframed as misinterpretation, while at the same time cognitive dissonance
Speaker 1: is offloaded onto the viewer. The citizen is made responsible
Speaker 1: for reconciling official inconsistency, and that inversion protects institutions from
Speaker 1: internal correction. Bureaucracies that never admit error accumulate it silently. Eventually,
Speaker 1: error becomes structural, and at that point, deception is no
Speaker 1: longer strategic, it's existential. Truth would destroy the institution itself.
Speaker 1: And that is where some agencies now stand. The Epstein
Speaker 1: case threatens not individuals, but systems. Financial conduits, donor networks,
Speaker 1: intelligence partnerships, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining norms, and media gatekeeping
Speaker 1: all intersect here. Exposure would not only embarrass, it would delegitimize. Therefore,
Speaker 1: every lever of delay is pulled. Classification is expanded. Jurisdiction, fragmented. Responsibility, well, diffused.
Speaker 1: Each actor claims limited authority. Each office claims limited knowledge.
Speaker 1: And the sum of limited knowledge becomes total ignorance by design.
Speaker 1: This is not a conspiracy theory. It's bureaucratic physics. Complex
Speaker 1: systems diffuse blame naturally. And Epstein exploited that architecture perfectly.
Speaker 1: The state has now inherited the consequences. The good news
Speaker 1: is that the public senses this, intuitively, even without documents.
Speaker 1: That's why distrust persists across ideological lines. It's not driven
Speaker 1: by rumor, but by pattern recognition. When too many anomalies cluster,
Speaker 1: inference becomes unavoidable. The suicide narrative conflicts with protocol. The
Speaker 1: camera failures conflict with redundancy norms. The cellmate transfers conflict
Speaker 1: with risk classification. The autopsy findings conflict with precedents. The
Speaker 1: prior plea deal conflicts with statutory practice. The financial immunity
Speaker 1: conflicts with fiduciary law. These conflicts do not require speculation.
Speaker 1: They require explanation. And explanations have not been provided. Silence, therefore,
Speaker 1: becomes accusation. What we're witnessing is not a cover-up in
Speaker 1: the cinematic sense, but a bureaucratic burial. No single memo
Speaker 1: order concealment. Instead, each office protects itself locally, each delay
Speaker 1: is justified procedurally, each redaction is defended legally, each omission
Speaker 1: is rationalized administratively. The result is a collective outcome no
Speaker 1: one officially chose. That's how modern institutional secrecy functions. Responsibility
Speaker 1: evaporates into structure and the public is left arguing with shadows.
Speaker 1: That's precisely why narrative control becomes essential. Without narrative, the
Speaker 1: architecture is visible. Without narrative, the architecture disappears. And look,
Speaker 1: Orwell understood this mechanism perfectly. The command to reject sensory
Speaker 1: evidence is not about any single fact. It's about training
Speaker 1: obedience to contradiction. Once citizens practice disbelief daily, resistance becomes
Speaker 1: psychologically expensive. Doubt becomes exhausting. Acceptance becomes relief. And that
Speaker 1: relief is addictive. Power then supplies narratives not to persuade,
Speaker 1: but to placate. The citizen stops seeking truth and begins
Speaker 1: seeking emotional stability. Institutions become caretakers of perception rather than
Speaker 1: servants of law. At that moment, democracy becomes decorative. Elections occur,
Speaker 1: but reality is curated. Oversight exists, but evidence is filtered.
Speaker 1: Freedom survives in language while disappearing in practice. And the
Speaker 1: most dangerous aspect of this moment is not deception, but habituation.
Speaker 1: Citizens now expect to be lied to. Hell, we budget
Speaker 1: for dishonesty emotionally. Outrage spikes briefly and then fades. Scandal
Speaker 1: becomes entertainment. Injustice becomes background noise. This is how accountability
Speaker 1: dies quietly. Not through repression, but through normalization. And the
Speaker 1: Epstein case has now persisted long enough to test that threshold.
Speaker 1: Many assume nothing meaningful will ever emerge, and that assumption
Speaker 1: itself is victory for concealment. When expectation of truth dies,
Speaker 1: concealment becomes permanent. Institutions then govern without fear. Yet history
Speaker 1: shows us burial is never complete. Documents surface, witnesses age
Speaker 1: into irrelevance and then speak. Archives open, then power shifts.
Speaker 1: Patterns are reconstructed after careers end. And the truth rarely
Speaker 1: arrives on schedule, but It arrives. When it does, reputations
Speaker 1: collapse posthumously. Institutions apologize decades later. Reports are issued when
Speaker 1: consequences no longer matter. That is how empires confess safely.
Speaker 1: The Epstein material will eventually be understood far more clearly
Speaker 1: than now. The question is only how much damage will
Speaker 1: be normalized before then. Remember, folks, delay is not innocence.
Speaker 1: It's a strategy. And as a matter of law, Transparency
Speaker 1: is not optional. It's now constitutional. Due process can't survive secrecy.
Speaker 1: Equal protection cannot survive selective enforcement. Judicial legitimacy cannot survive
Speaker 1: undisclosed influence. And when prosecutors negotiate immunity in secret, law
Speaker 1: becomes privilege. When judges seal records indefinitely, justice becomes property.
Speaker 1: When agencies destroy evidence without consequence, oversight becomes a myth.
Speaker 1: The Epstein affair demonstrates all three failures simultaneously. That's why
Speaker 1: it matters beyond its horror. It's a stress test of
Speaker 1: Republican institutions. And so far, they're failing. Now the citizens'
Speaker 1: duty in such a moment is not allegiance, but insistence.
Speaker 1: Loyalty to institutions that betray truth is not patriotism, it's submission.
Speaker 1: The founders did not design deference, they designed suspicion. They
Speaker 1: assumed that power would lie by default. That is why
Speaker 1: they fragmented authority. That's why they demanded transparency. That's why
Speaker 1: they protected the press. That's why they constitutionalized confrontation. When
Speaker 1: citizens abandon that posture, institutions revert to monarchy by inertia.
Speaker 1: Narrative control is simply the modern crown. And that's why
Speaker 1: the quote we started off with is not literary garnish,
Speaker 1: it's a warning label. When power instructs disbelief, Tyranny has
Speaker 1: already arrived softly. When video is denied, documents will be erased.
Speaker 1: When testimony is reframed, records will be sealed. When memory
Speaker 1: is questioned, history will be rewritten. Epstein's case exists precisely
Speaker 1: at that junction of memory and erasure. How it's resolved
Speaker 1: will signal whether truth still has standing in American law.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately so far, the signal is grim. Now, history will
Speaker 1: indeed judge this era harshly, not for ignorance, but for accommodation.
Speaker 1: It will note how evidence was visible, patterns obvious, and
Speaker 1: resistance sporadic. It's going to record how institutions chose survivability
Speaker 1: over integrity. It'll analyze how narrative management replaced accountability as governance.
Speaker 1: It'll conclude that collapse began not with rebellion, but with rationalization.
Speaker 1: The citizens who accepted contradiction to preserve comfort will not
Speaker 1: be treated gently, nor should they be. So look, I
Speaker 1: think the final lesson is simple and unforgiving. A government
Speaker 1: that lies about what you can see will lie about
Speaker 1: what you cannot. A justice system that hides easy truths
Speaker 1: will bury hard ones. An administration that insults perception will
Speaker 1: obliterate memory. The Epstein case is not an anomaly. Unfortunately...
Speaker 1: It's a prototype. The denial you witness on video today
Speaker 1: is rehearsal for the files you will never read tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Orwell wasn't warning about ideology. He was warning about method.
Speaker 1: We are now living inside of that method. And the
Speaker 1: cost of accepting it will not be theoretical. Instead, it'll
Speaker 1: be historical. All of the information that goes with this
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.