Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. As the Truth Commission in New Mexico continues
Speaker 1: to try and figure out what happened when it comes
Speaker 1: to Jeffrey Epstein and his behavior in the state of
Speaker 1: New Mexico. There are some lawmakers in the state who
Speaker 1: think it's a big joke, and instead of getting on
Speaker 1: board and trying to figure out what's what, instead they're
Speaker 1: just talking a bunch of nonsense and they're trying to
Speaker 1: gum up the process. So today we have an article
Speaker 1: from the Santa Fe, New Mexican detailing the situation and
Speaker 1: what's going on down to New Mexico, headlined the Roundhouse Report,
Speaker 1: Republicans call on Epstein Truth Commission to subpoena Holland and Stansbury.
Speaker 1: This article was authored by Daniel J. Chacone State Senate.
Speaker 1: Republicans want Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deb Holand and US Representative
Speaker 1: Melanie Stansbury to come clean about their ties to late
Speaker 1: convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, even though
Speaker 1: Holland has already provided an explanation backed by records, and
Speaker 1: Stansbury' supposed connection has been debunked. So they're just passing
Speaker 1: on misinformation to try and play partisan politics. Instead of saying, look,
Speaker 1: something went wrong in New Mexico and we have to
Speaker 1: figure out what it was. Instead they want to play
Speaker 1: these little games, these what aboutism games, And the sad
Speaker 1: part is they're using information that's not even real. Like
Speaker 1: if Stansbury or Holland had actual ties to Epstein, then
Speaker 1: yeah they should be testifying. But I haven't seen any
Speaker 1: evidence that backs up those assertions. The Senate gopacauck Is
Speaker 1: called Thursday for a truth commission investigating Epstein's activities in
Speaker 1: New Mexico, specifically at his former Zoro ranch in southern
Speaker 1: Santa Fe County, to subpoena the two Democrats to compel
Speaker 1: them to testify under oath about their knowledge of and
Speaker 1: connections to Jeffrey Epstein and individuals associated with his criminal network. Cool,
Speaker 1: so the state of New Mexico should also subpoena Howard Lutnik, Right,
Speaker 1: how about Darren Endyke, how about Donald Trump? How about
Speaker 1: Ben Black? I mean, if is this the game that
Speaker 1: the state GOP wants to play in New Mexico, I
Speaker 1: don't think that they really thought this through not doing
Speaker 1: so would undermine the Commission's credibility. Republicans warned, you know
Speaker 1: what's really undermining their credibility, these idiots running their mouths
Speaker 1: and acting stupid. What they're trying to do is destroy
Speaker 1: the credibility of the Commission. That's what they're attempting to do.
Speaker 1: And whether that's to protect their people or not, I
Speaker 1: don't know, but that's certainly the game here. And if
Speaker 1: these local politicians down in New Mexico think they're a slick,
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell them they're not subpoenaing federal agencies
Speaker 1: while giving a pass to two of the most powerful
Speaker 1: Democrats in New Mexico is not transparency. Senate Minority Leader
Speaker 1: Bill Sr of Farmington said in a statement, Hey, dumbfuck
Speaker 1: from Farmington, those federal agencies that got subpoenas they were involved.
Speaker 1: Was Miss Stansbury or Miss Holland involved. Show me the
Speaker 1: documentation and I'll gladly have them called up to the
Speaker 1: problem is you don't have that documentation, and instead, what
Speaker 1: you're trying to do is to delegitimize the whole process.
Speaker 1: And I guarantee you the people of New Mexico are
Speaker 1: going to realize that as well. It's selective accountability, and
Speaker 1: New Mexicans will see right through it. No, mister Share,
Speaker 1: They're going to see through what you're up to, buddy. Okay,
Speaker 1: they're going to see through it, because what you're up
Speaker 1: to is unbelievably disgusting. The Caucus called on the Commission,
Speaker 1: which is made up of two Democratic and too Republican
Speaker 1: House members, to take up the matter at its next
Speaker 1: meeting and issue subpoenas accordingly. We what they should do
Speaker 1: is issue a subpoena to mister Sharer. What does he know?
Speaker 1: How long has he been in office? How many connections
Speaker 1: as he had with people surrounding Epstein? If that's a
Speaker 1: game he wants to play, But what it really does
Speaker 1: is it stumps justice and it makes the process grind
Speaker 1: to a halt. When you start lobbing around accusations about
Speaker 1: the Commission itself, well you're not focusing on the people
Speaker 1: that you should focus on. So I wonder if mister
Speaker 1: Sharer got a nice fat paycheck to run this kind
Speaker 1: of interference. I mean, he's throwing out a bunch of allegations.
Speaker 1: Is that what happened? Mister Scherer, are you on the take.
Speaker 1: Should the Commission decline to pursue this common sense step,
Speaker 1: the Caucus and the citizens of New Mexico will be
Speaker 1: forced to question whether the Commission, as currently constituted, is
Speaker 1: capable of conducting the truly nonpartisan, survivor centered investigation it's promised.
Speaker 1: New Mexicans Republicans said in the news release, like they
Speaker 1: care stop it. They're taking their cue from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Oh well, Donald Trump says it's a hoax. We can
Speaker 1: get away with the same thing. I assure you you cannot.
Speaker 1: You don't have the backing that Trump has. And mister Shaer,
Speaker 1: guess what. You weren't on the clock before, but you
Speaker 1: are now. So now we're gonna be watching all your nonsense,
Speaker 1: everything you say, and if you obstruct the process, we're
Speaker 1: gonna call you out. And I know people like mister
Speaker 1: share are not used to being accountable for anything, but
Speaker 1: guess what that should be, seld And if you think
Speaker 1: you're gonna insert yourself into this and try and be
Speaker 1: an obstacle to transparency and justice, buddy, you got another
Speaker 1: thing coming. We believe the Committee should look at every lead,
Speaker 1: regardless of who that may be. The Republican members Representatives
Speaker 1: Andrea Reeb of Clovis and Bill Hall of Farmington said
Speaker 1: in a joint statement, Well, yeah, if you have evidence
Speaker 1: of deb Hiland and Stansbury being tied to Epstein, let's
Speaker 1: see it. Provide the evidence, and then if there's evidence,
Speaker 1: let's have them come in and talk about what they know.
Speaker 1: The chair Representative, Andrea Romero, a Santa Fe Democrat, declined
Speaker 1: a request for an interview. In a statement, she said
Speaker 1: the Bipartisan Commission was structured as an independent body for
Speaker 1: a reason, to conduct an investigation driven by evidence and
Speaker 1: the pursuit of justice for victims. What they're trying to
Speaker 1: do on a smaller level, obviously, is the same thing
Speaker 1: the DOJ is doing, and that's to cause enough reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt amongst the populace to make people question whatever results
Speaker 1: are found. It's a preemptive strike. The Commission, she said,
Speaker 1: is committed to pursuing all credible leads and welcomes information
Speaker 1: of a leg wrongdoing in New Mexico involving Epstein. We
Speaker 1: will maintain an open, transparent process and encourage members of
Speaker 1: the public to join us in person or online for
Speaker 1: our next meeting on August fifth, where will release an
Speaker 1: interim report on our findings thus far. She said, well,
Speaker 1: that's good, let's see it. And again, look, I'm not
Speaker 1: taking up for Stansbury or Holland. I don't care about
Speaker 1: either of them. What I care about the truth. And
Speaker 1: unless they have something that we've never seen before, I
Speaker 1: don't think they're working with the truth when it comes
Speaker 1: to mister Scherer and his nonsense. Here, the Republican release
Speaker 1: reiterates Holland flew on a private jet chartered by Epstein
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen while she was running for lieutenant governor
Speaker 1: alongside Democratic gubernatorial nominee Gary King, a long time Epstein
Speaker 1: associate who had requested the use of his personal plane. Look,
Speaker 1: there is no doubt that Gary King was associated with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein one hundred percent. I mean he bought the
Speaker 1: ranch from the King family. The jet in question was
Speaker 1: not Epstein's. Rather, he had asked his employees to organize
Speaker 1: the jet for Gary King. According to emails in the
Speaker 1: Epstein files, a flight log Liz Holland as one of
Speaker 1: five passengers, but Holland has said through spokespeople she was
Speaker 1: unaware of Epstein's involvement. Well, she should come before the
Speaker 1: Commission and lay it all out. That's all pretty simple, right.
Speaker 1: If you have nothing to hide, come forward and lay
Speaker 1: it all out. If gubernatorial candidate deb Holland has nothing
Speaker 1: to hide, I'm sure she will have no issue publicly
Speaker 1: explaining what she was doing on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet
Speaker 1: to the people of New Mexico. Scherer said, And look,
Speaker 1: if you want to call the Republicans game, you want
Speaker 1: to show your hand, show up. Okay, look fine, I
Speaker 1: think this is ridiculous. I've already explained you know what
Speaker 1: my role here was. But I'm here before the Commission
Speaker 1: to show that I believe in the process, and I'm
Speaker 1: willing to stand tall before the man and answer the
Speaker 1: questions you think I should answer. Republicans also want the
Speaker 1: Commission to questions Stansbury about her supposed ties to Epstein's
Speaker 1: accomplice Glane Maxwell. It's been reported that Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury
Speaker 1: may have previously been employed by a nonprofit organization with
Speaker 1: ties to document that Epstein associate and fellow criminal conspirator
Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell. The Republicans release dates. The reports have been
Speaker 1: proven to be false, though Stansbury or her staff. There
Speaker 1: are some responsibility due to an inaccurate financial disclosure form,
Speaker 1: as reported last year in The New Mexican Stansbury initially
Speaker 1: had listed Taramar Project of Woburn, Massachusetts as one of
Speaker 1: her employers. Maxwell's nonprofit was Taramar Project and at one
Speaker 1: point showed Woburn as its address. But the organization Stansbury
Speaker 1: worked for when she was an independent policy and management
Speaker 1: consultant between twenty seventeen and twenty one was Taramar Consulting
Speaker 1: Group in Santa Fe. So, look, this is the problem
Speaker 1: I have. The Republicans down here in Santa Fe have
Speaker 1: every right to demand accountability, and they should, but they
Speaker 1: shouldn't be playing games. They know that this paperwork that
Speaker 1: Stansbury filed is in for Glenn Maxwell's TAMAR, but they're
Speaker 1: still going to try and use it as a cudgel.
Speaker 1: And unfortunately, what that does is it takes away from
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the process overall. And look, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt that the Democrats are doing the same thing. How
Speaker 1: many times have I said it about people like Robert Garcia,
Speaker 1: And for me, it's one of the biggest problems and
Speaker 1: the largest impediments on the path to justice. We have
Speaker 1: way too many people that want to make it political
Speaker 1: instead of just going after people who were involved full stop.
Speaker 1: When Stansbury's campaign staff first filed her financial disclosures for
Speaker 1: her candidacy for her congressional seat, they entered her financial
Speaker 1: information into the House system and mistakenly clicked on an
Speaker 1: auto populated field, misidentifying the consultancy, a spokesperson said at
Speaker 1: the time, adding Stansbury corrected the filing once the mistake
Speaker 1: was caught. Allegation Stansbury worked for an organization with ties
Speaker 1: to Maxwell are untrue. Stansbury's campaign said in a statement
Speaker 1: last year. Okay, so that's what she said. And this
Speaker 1: has been going on for over a year. If the
Speaker 1: Republicans know that this is the case, why are they
Speaker 1: bringing it up now? If you want to talk about
Speaker 1: deb Holland and have her talk about you know, the
Speaker 1: Gary King flights. Okay maybe, but I think this when
Speaker 1: it comes to Stansbury, with this being proven to not
Speaker 1: be the company she was working for, is a swing
Speaker 1: and a miss for the Republicans. Here are the facts.
Speaker 1: Representative Stansbury worked as an independent consultant with a small
Speaker 1: Santa Fe based consulting firm called Tara Mar Consulting Group.
Speaker 1: In this role, Representative Stansbury work with the Santa Fe
Speaker 1: based consultant and the Hewlett Foundation on a water policy project.
Speaker 1: Representative Stansbury has absolutely no ties to the similarly named
Speaker 1: Tara Mar project, which was misreported, according to the statement. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that's her going on record saying that she has
Speaker 1: no ties to tell a Mar. But now if we
Speaker 1: find out she does, the conversation changes, right. But as
Speaker 1: of now, this is an unsubstantiated report that's attempted to
Speaker 1: be wielded as fact. And that's where I have a problem.
Speaker 1: Right wing outlets continuing to traffic in these lives are false, libelous,
Speaker 1: and trying to distract from the real story, which is
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's ties to Maxwell and the Epstein files. The
Speaker 1: statement continued, So, look, the Republicans down in New Mexico
Speaker 1: obviously have no desire to see this through. They have
Speaker 1: no desire to find out the truth, and instead they
Speaker 1: want to play games. And maybe they should take some
Speaker 1: of this passion and turn it on Jeffrey Epstein's associates,
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, that's what this
Speaker 1: commission has been in paneled for so my suggestion is
Speaker 1: stop with the infighting, stop with the nonsense, and instead
Speaker 1: focus on the business at hand. And as this are
Speaker 1: argument continues to play out, We're gonna be here every
Speaker 1: step of the way. All the information that goes with
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box