Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this today. We are attempting to navigate
some really dark waters. We're looking at that intersection where
global capital meets intelligence operations.
Speaker 2: And where the people involved, the powerbrokers, they communicate in
code exactly.
Speaker 1: We've got a piece of source material today that is
so specific and so so charged that it tries to
put a name, a hugely famous name, to the person
who tipped off the police in one of the biggest
criminal cases of our time.
Speaker 2: We are doing a deep dive into the allegation that
Donald Trump was an FBI informant against Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: And this isn't just you know, some random rumor.
Speaker 2: No, not at all. Our source material is really compelling.
It's from exops of a video Epstein email hence Trump
was FBI informant, which is on the majority report in W.
Samseter YouTube channel, and.
Speaker 1: It all centers on this one piece of evidence, a
private communication.
Speaker 2: It's an email from twenty eleven sent from Jeffrey Epstein
directly to Gisline Maxwell.
Speaker 1: And inside this email there's this this coded almost literary reference, right.
Speaker 2: And the allegation is that Epstein was using this code
to identify Donald Trump as the person who tipped off
the authorities about him years before.
Speaker 1: The phrase itself is I mean, it's almost the cliche at.
Speaker 2: This point, the dog that hasn't barked.
Speaker 1: The dog that has embarked. It's information hidden in plain sight.
You have to have a certain kind of I don't
know literacy to even get what it means.
Speaker 2: Yeah, cultural literacy, or maybe even an operational one.
Speaker 1: So our mission today is to follow that thread. We're
starting with a seventy five percent suspicion and trying to
see if it leads to a one hundred percent systemic understanding.
Speaker 2: We're not just looking at one email or a feud
between two powerful men.
Speaker 1: No, we're using this very specific allegation as a window
into something much, much bigger. We're going to look at
where this belief even came from, the contradictions in the public.
Speaker 2: Record, and maybe most importantly, how this whole situation sheds
light on these huge structural dynamics, surveillance, intelligence agencies, and
the the incredible power of these global capital networks.
Speaker 1: It's about seeing the pattern behind this one event. So
let's start at the beginning. Where did this suspicion even
come from?
Speaker 2: Well to really feel the weight of that phrase. The
dog that has embarked, you have to go back.
Speaker 1: To its origin, the literary source.
Speaker 2: Exactly. It's a very deliberate choice. These are people who
understand the power of silence, of what isn't said. It
was from right, Arthur Conan Doyle. Yeah, the story is
the adventure of silver Blaze and.
Speaker 1: The genius of it. And I think why it applies
so well here is that the evidence is an absence
of something.
Speaker 2: Right, a prize winning racehorse disappears, everyone is a suspect.
But Holmes points out that the guard dog on the
property didn't make a sound, It didn't bark. It didn't bark,
and why because it knew the thief. It knew the thief.
The silence, the lack of a reaction, that was the
most damning evidence of all. It signals familiarity or complicity
or that. Yeah, so when Epstein uses the analogy, the
source material suggests he was saying Trump was silent. He's
the dog that didn't bark because he already knew what.
Speaker 1: Was happening, he knew who tipped off the authorities, or and.
Speaker 2: This is the most damning interpretation, he was silent because
I'd be reporting on me. The silence was self protection.
Speaker 1: It was an agnorance, It was involvement exactly.
Speaker 2: And this isn't just some abstract theory the Epstein biographer
cited in the Sores Barry Levine. He points to a
very specific real world event that Epstein was supposedly referring to.
Speaker 1: Okay, so he provides the chronological anchor for this he does.
Speaker 2: Levine fates very clearly that Epstein's suspicion was tied to
the very first spark of his legal problems.
Speaker 1: The beginning of it all, the beginning.
Speaker 2: Epstein believed that Donald Trump spoke directly to Michael Ryder,
who was the Palm Beach police chief back in two
thousand and four.
Speaker 1: Wow, So not just some anonymous tip line. He went
straight to the top.
Speaker 2: Straight to the chief of police in the exact area
where Epstein was operating. And that conversation, allegedly is what
kicked off the first series investstigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Okay, we have to pause on that for a second.
Going directly to the police chief, that's a power move.
Speaker 2: It's a huge power move. Michael Ryder is a significant
figure in a community, like Palm Beach, a.
Speaker 1: Very exclusive, very high value community.
Speaker 2: Right, and Trump as the owner of mar Lago, he's
not just a resident, he's a local institution.
Speaker 1: So if he bypasses the normal channels and goes straight
to the guy in charge, the person who decides where
to put resources.
Speaker 2: It suggests a very deliberate, very strategic maneuver. It says
Trump had the motive and he definitely had the access
to get an investigation started that might be let's say,
politically protected.
Speaker 1: One that wouldn't necessarily leave the usual paper trail exactly.
Speaker 2: So for Epstein, seeing that happen, the implication would be
clear Trump used his status to webinize the police against him.
Speaker 1: And what really really grounds this, what makes it feel
less like pure speculation, is another detail from that same
twenty eleven email, the part that quantified Yeah, the source
material quotes it directly. The email apparently says, police chief, etc.
I'm seventy five percent there.
Speaker 2: And that seventy five percent is so telling. It's not
an emotional outburst, it's not I'm sure of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a calculation, it's a risk assessment.
Speaker 2: It tells you that by twenty eleven years after this
all started, and after their relationship it completely soured, Epstein
was methodically calculating the odds, and.
Speaker 1: He landed on his seventy five percent probability that his
former friend Donald Trump was the informant who started his downfall.
Speaker 2: It really forces you to take the whole thing seriously.
It's not just a conspiracy theory. It's a calculated suspicion
communicated privately between two people at the absolute center of
the storm.
Speaker 1: It provides that concrete anchor the two thousand and four
investigation and the very specific mechanism a conversation with the
police chief.
Speaker 2: And it's just fascinating how these people operate. They don't
use direct language. I mean, they can't write too much risk,
so they use literary analogies and percentages. It's a kind
of operational security, you know, they know their messages might
get out one day.
Speaker 1: So the seventy five percent isn't just about Trump. It's
about Epstein mapping out his own destruction and concluding with
pretty high confidence that the first Domino was pushed by
someone he considered a peer.
Speaker 2: Which, of course immediately brings us to the next logical question,
why why would he do it? What was the motive?
Speaker 1: So we know the emails are from twenty eleven. The
sources are clear that by then the two of them
had already had a quote falling out.
Speaker 2: A major falling out, which brings.
Speaker 1: Us to that question of motive. I mean, why would
Donald Trump, a guy who ran in the exact same
circles who hosted Epstein at mar A Lago, why would
he betray him to the police in two thousand and four.
Speaker 2: It's a fantastic question because at that level of wealth
and influence, you'd think relationships are everything. Discretion is the currency,
loyalty is paramount.
Speaker 1: You don't just, you know, turn on one of your own,
you risk upsetting the entire ecosystem unless.
Speaker 2: The provocation is severe enough. And the source material actually
lays out two very specific reasons for the break. One
is personal and one is material.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's start with the personal one. The source says
it had to do with Gislaine Maxwell. It did.
Speaker 2: The allegation is that Epstein was upset because Maxwell was,
and this is the quote taking young women from his
spot mar A Lago for Epstein's use.
Speaker 1: Now, on the surface, that might just sound like gossip,
but if you look at it through a lens of power.
Speaker 2: It's a conflict over territory exactly.
Speaker 1: Mar A Lago wasn't just some hotel. It was and
is Trump's domain, his fear of.
Speaker 2: Influence, his brand, his kingdom.
Speaker 1: For Maxwell to allegedly be operating there, sourcing people from
his spot, it suggests a profound level of disrespect, a
crossing of a very clear boundary.
Speaker 2: You're not just using his property, You're treating his highly visible,
very valuable territory like it's just some fungible asset, like
it's a supply depot.
Speaker 1: And for someone like Trump, who is so focused on
control and image, that would be completely intolerable.
Speaker 2: It's an ego violation tied directly to his physical territory.
He might have felt that Epstein wasn't just using his club,
but was potentially compromising his own reputation, his own security
by association.
Speaker 1: In that world, you have to police your boundaries. Any trespass,
even from a powerful associate, could trigger a really aggressive response.
Speaker 2: And if that wasn't enough on its.
Speaker 1: Own, there was also a material reason, a financial one.
Speaker 2: The sources are clear on this. They also had a
nasty real estate deal that both men were trying to get.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't just personal, it was business, a direct
competition over a significant.
Speaker 2: Asset, right, And this brings up a really thought provoking
question that the source material itself raises, which is, why
would someone like Epstein, with seemingly limitless money and connections
to intelligence agencies and global capital, why would he risk
alienating a powerful guy like Trump over one piece of
real estate.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a great point for you or me.
A piece of property is a life changing asset for
these guys. It's a line item on a balance sheet.
Speaker 2: It seems completely counterintuitive. Why risk a valuable strategic relationship
over a single acquisition.
Speaker 1: Less unless that property was more than just a property.
Speaker 2: That's one possibility. It implies a hidden significance. Maybe the
deal wasn't just about money. Maybe it was strategic.
Speaker 1: What do you means strategic?
Speaker 2: Well, maybe it was needed for a specific operational purpose
intelligence gathering, a discrete travel hub, a key outpost, and
a sensitive location. If that property was essential to Epstein's network,
then competing with Trump for it goes from being a
simple business dispute to a the.
Speaker 1: High stakes operational conflict exactly.
Speaker 2: That's one theory and the other. The other is much simpler,
but maybe even more.
Speaker 1: Powerful in that world, just sheer ego.
Speaker 2: Sheer ego and spite. Maybe the combination of the Maxwell
situation and the real estate fight created such a deep
personal animosity that all the strategic benefits of staying friends
just went out the window.
Speaker 1: It became less about the asset and more about who
was going to win.
Speaker 2: It became a pure power struggle expressed through money and territory.
And in that context, whether the motive was strategic or
just personal, Trump now has ample reason to see Epstein
as an enemy.
Speaker 1: And if you have an enemy of that status picking
up the phone and calling the police chief, it.
Speaker 2: Starts to look like a logical, if very extreme, way
to neutralize a threat.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this brings us right to the core paradox,
the central contradiction of this whole thing. Right, if Epstein
was seventy five percent sure that Trump was the informant,
the dog that has embarked, the guy who kicked off
the whole two thousand and four investigation, then why isn't
this a settled fact today?
Speaker 2: Why isn't Trump, as the source puts it, shouting it
from the mountaintops exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, can you imagine the political value in being
able to say you're the one who put Epstein away,
especially now? But instead there's.
Speaker 2: Just silence, And that silence is the real mystery here.
It strongly suggests that if he was the infant, there
has to be an overwhelmingly compelling reason why that fact
can't be made public.
Speaker 1: A reason so big that the risk of it coming
out is greater than the massive political win he'd get
from taking credit.
Speaker 2: Precisely, and the official record on this is just a
complete mess of conflicting stories.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the most basic fact. The Palm Beach Police.
Speaker 2: They have never ever publicly stated that Donald Trump was
an informant in this case, So.
Speaker 1: From the actual law enforcement agency that ran the case,
there's no confirmation. There's silence, just hangs there, which of
course leaves room for other theories to grow.
Speaker 2: And the official ambiguity is the key ingredient for this
whole unsayable truth dynamic we're going to get into.
Speaker 1: But then that ambiguity gets completely shattered by a statement
from a very high level politician.
Speaker 2: Yes, the source material points us out, specifically Hell.
Speaker 1: Speaker Mike Johnson, recently, he came out and just stated it.
He said that Donald Trump was an informant on this case.
Speaker 2: Which is just an earthquake in the middle of this narrative.
This isn't some law or a fringe character. This is
the sitting speaker of the House.
Speaker 1: So if he's saying it, it suggests that within certain circles,
maybe classified political circles or intelligence circles, this is just
accepted as fact.
Speaker 2: It creates this profound public contradiction. The police who ran
the case are silent. A top politician says it happened.
It's like an official endorsement of Epstein's private suspicion. But
it just makes the public story even more confusing.
Speaker 1: Which naturally forces us to look at the alternative story,
the one championed by the person who knows the primary
facts of this case better than almost anyone, Julie Brown,
the Miami Herald reporter. Her work is what brought this
whole case back into the light, and the source notes
that she doesn't believe that Trump would have been the informant.
Speaker 2: Her theory is much simpler, much more grounded in standard
police work.
Speaker 1: She suggests the tip came from a parent.
Speaker 2: Right which in a case involving minors, is the most logical,
most common way for an investigation to start. A concerned
parent calls the.
Speaker 1: Police's clean it's non political, and it would explain why
the police have never mentioned Trump's name. They don't have to.
Speaker 2: So now we're juggling three conflicting things. Police are silent.
A top reporter says a parent did it, and a
top politician says Trump did it.
Speaker 1: And this is where we have to synthesize these ideas
because maybe they aren't mutually exclusive.
Speaker 2: This is where the idea of a pre existing relationship
becomes so critical. Wait, I mean, let's assume for a
moment that Julie Brown is one hundred percent correct. A
parent made the initial call in two thousand and four
that was the official trigger. Epstein's seventy five percent suspicion
from twenty eleven could still be perfectly rational if he
was aware that Trump already had a long term, pre
existing relationship with the government as an informant in totally
different contexts.
Speaker 1: Ah, So it's not about one phone call, it's about
a known status. Trump was already a guy who talked
to the Feds.
Speaker 2: Exactly for someone like Trump with his business dealings, his
real estate, his casinos. Having a relationship with the FBI
wouldn't be that unusual.
Speaker 1: So what would that look like. Was he a formal
registered source.
Speaker 2: It could be a range of things. It could be
a formal confidential human source or chs where he's on
the books, maybe getting paid or protected in exchange for information.
Speaker 1: If that were true, revealing it would compromise dozens of
other operations that have nothing to do with Epstein, which
explains the silence.
Speaker 2: Or it could be more informal, a long term information exchange.
He's a good citizen who over the years builds relationships
with high level agents, feeding them intel on say, organized
crime figures in Atlantic City or money laundering through his properties.
Speaker 1: So he's a friendly asset but not officially on the payroll.
Speaker 2: And if Epstein knew that Trump operated in that gray area,
that he was a dog that knew the system and
sometimes barked, then as soon as that two thousand and
four investigation.
Speaker 1: Started, especially right after their personal and business falling.
Speaker 2: Out, Epstein would immediately connect the dots and assume Trump
was behind it, even if a parent technically made the
first call.
Speaker 1: Because Trump could have used his status to confirm the
parent's story, add details, and make sure the police chief
took it seriously.
Speaker 2: Precisely. The bad blood between them provides the motive. Trump's
established relationship with law enforcement provides the means. The suspicion
isn't about who made the first call. It's about who
was the guiding hand making sure the investigation move forward.
Speaker 1: And that kind of information that a figure like Trump
might be a deep, long term government asset is exactly
the kind of truth that government would never ever officially confirm.
Speaker 2: Never, the national security implications of outing a high level
asset would always outweigh any political convenience. It's the very
definition of an unsayable truth.
Speaker 1: Which brings us to the structure of secrecy itself.
Speaker 2: This is where it gets really interesting and frankly a bit.
Speaker 1: Terrifying, removing now from the personal motives of these two
men to the much broader, systemic reason why the real
answers to big questions often just cannot be said.
Speaker 2: It's a critical pivot. The source suggests that the truth
is often suppressed not because of a simple cover up
of a crime, but because revealing it would expose the
entire secret infrastructure of how the government actually works.
Speaker 1: You sacrifice the truth of one event to protect the
system itself.
Speaker 2: And the source uses this brilliant analogy to explain it
from a nineteen seventy one.
Speaker 1: Movie, The Anderson Tapes.
Speaker 2: The Anderson Tapes, the plot is a perfect metaphor for
this kind of narrative control.
Speaker 1: So in the film, there's this big, complicated heist. The
crew gets.
Speaker 2: Caught right, but when the police are investigating, they find
out the entire location was bugged. It was wired with
all this top secret surveillance gear.
Speaker 1: And the gear wasn't there for the heist. It was
part of dozens of other unrelated government investigations by multiple agencies.
Speaker 2: And here's the twist. The heist crew they can't be prosecuted.
Why not, because to prosecute them, you'd have to reveal
the existence of the secret surveillance network in court. You'd
have to talk about it, its location, its technology. You'd
compromise every other operation it was being used for.
Speaker 1: So you let the criminals from this one crime go free.
Speaker 2: To protect the larger systemic apparatus of surveillance. Justice in
the specific is sacrificed to protect the system in general.
Speaker 1: And the Source applies this principle directly to real world
political scandals. When the real answer can't come out because
it exposes a deeper secret.
Speaker 2: The establishment has to backfill. They have to create a
different story, a cover story, to fill the whole left
by the unmentionable truth.
Speaker 1: Let's use the case studies from the source to make
this concrete.
Speaker 2: First up, Benghazi, right, the source explores the persistent speculation
that the US annex in Benghazi was involved in some
kind of top secret activity. The specific theory mentioned is
shipping armaments to Syria.
Speaker 1: So a highly sensitive, politically explosive covert operation.
Speaker 2: And if that's true, it completely changes how you view
the official story. The public narrative was about secure failures miscommunications.
Speaker 1: That was the backfill because the government could never ever
admit the core truth that it was running a clandestine
weapons shipping operation on foreign soil.
Speaker 2: And think about the political implications. If the Republicans investigating
this new or suspected that the real reason can't come out.
Speaker 1: Then their own investigations are automatically handicapped.
Speaker 2: They're fighting a ghost. Their alternative theories can never be
definitively proven wrong because the official story they're arguing against
is itself structurally incomplete. It's designed to avoid the core secret.
Speaker 1: So you just get this endless cycle of suspicion and
confusion because the public is being fed a partial reality
that's built to protect the Anderson tapes infrastructure.
Speaker 2: And the second case study from the source applies the
same logic internally to US law enforcement.
Speaker 1: The Mealer investigation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the source brings up this conviction that the Mealer
report had to quote stay away from a big quadrant
of stuff related to the New York FBI office Round
twenty fifteen twenty sixteen stories about internal mutiny issues with Komy.
Speaker 1: So if the unmentionable truth there was deep institutional turmoil
or even misconduct within a key FBI field.
Speaker 2: Office, then the official investigation, the Moler Report, has to
be written to carefully navigate around that truth. It has
to protect the institution, which leads.
Speaker 1: To the public perception that the things were left out,
that the pieces don't quite fit.
Speaker 2: And the reason they don't fit isn't necessarily some grand conspiracy,
it's the professional necessity of preserving the integrity of the
bureau itself. You tell a story that protects the institution
even if it's not the complete story.
Speaker 1: And this brings us right back to Trump and Epstein.
If revealing that Trump was a long term government asset,
the human equivalent of the Anderson tape surveillance gear would
compromise that whole network.
Speaker 2: Then the official response has to be silenced. The police
stay quiet, the system is protected. Even if it creates
these bizarre contradictions with politicians like Mike Johnson.
Speaker 1: It really forces a much broader ragkeing with the US
intelligence apparatus as a whole.
Speaker 2: Doesn't that it does. I mean these agencies, the OSS,
the CIA, they started with you know, specific missions, but
as the source says, the whole thing was put on
steroids during the War on Terror.
Speaker 1: The scope, the scale, the lack of oversight, it all exploded.
Speaker 2: And what we might be seeing in the Epstein material,
which connects immense private wealth to this world, is a
hint of just how nefarious these networks could become. We
are truly just scratching the surface.
Speaker 1: It begs the question of who is actually in control?
Is it the government or is it the capital that's
bankrolling the whole.
Speaker 2: Network, which leads us directly to the role of money
in all.
Speaker 1: Of this right. If secrets are being kept to protect
the infrastructure, then we have to talk about what built
that infrastructure in the first place.
Speaker 2: Money. Capital. The source material is very clear that this
network sometimes seems to operate above the official agencies. It
suggests that capital dictates.
Speaker 1: The terms, not the government, and there's a historical basis
for this, a very strong one.
Speaker 2: The source reminds us that capital was running the day
from the very beginning of the CIA.
Speaker 1: It mentions the influence of firms like Sullivan and Cromwell.
Speaker 2: Let's just pause on that for a second. Sullivan and
Cromwell is the absolute embodiment of old guard Wall Street power,
international corporate law. The fact that figures from that world
were central to forming the CIA tells you everything.
Speaker 1: It tells you that the intelligence apparatus was never just
about national security. It was also about protecting global economic
interests right from day one, and that.
Speaker 2: Deep historical link helps explain the absolutely extraordinary nature of
the Epstein case.
Speaker 1: The source cites this idea that Massad is working for him,
then he's working for the Massad and however.
Speaker 2: You want to interpret that. It suggests a complete inversion
of the normal power dynamic.
Speaker 1: The asset is no longer just working for the handler.
Speaker 2: No Epstein, because of his mastery of capital, may have
reached a level where he was leveraging intelligence agencies for
his own purposes, for cover, for intel, for security. He
wasn't just an asset. His wealth made him a quasi
sovereign operator. He was directing, not just following.
Speaker 1: So if capital is running the day, the primary loyalty
isn't to a country, it's to the money and to
the network that protects the money.
Speaker 2: The whole dynamic flips, and that's how you get the
emergence of these these rogue assets.
Speaker 1: The source calls them certain cowboys or psychos.
Speaker 2: Yeah, these are individuals who are empowered above and beyond
even a typical like CIA or asset. They're allowed to
do like insane things.
Speaker 1: And the source draws aligned back to the Watergate era,
to figures like E. Howard Hunt.
Speaker 2: It's the same pattern. These figures, because of their unique
access or skills, they get a license to operate outside
the normal rules. They become so operationally valuable that they
become functionally untouchable.
Speaker 1: And that's where the intersection of limitless private money and
intelligence becomes so dangerous. It can provide cover for almost anything.
Speaker 2: And the last piece of this puzzle is connect that
money directly to geopolitics. The source points to the timeline
linking the rise of Western oil tycoons with the growth
of US and Israeli intelligence outposts around the world.
Speaker 1: It makes perfect sense. Where the money and the drilling
power went, the.
Speaker 2: Need for intelligence and security followed right behind it. Those
oil interests needed protection, They needed intel on competitors, on
regional stability. The intelligence outposts were fundamentally tied to securing
economic interests.
Speaker 1: So this infrastructure gets built to protect corporate interests.
Speaker 2: And over time, as the source concludes, it becomes ossified
and so significant that had this like international sway with
our politics.
Speaker 1: It stops being just a tool of foreign policy and
becomes this entrenched power structure that can dictate domestic narratives.
Speaker 2: And that's why truths that threaten the whole system, like
outing Trump as a long term informant or admitting to
a covert arms route in Bengazi, have to be scrubbed
from the official record. The silence protects the entire vast
power structure that capital built.
Speaker 1: So, after all that, what does this actually mean for
you for anyone trying to make sense of the world.
Speaker 2: I mean, we've really followed two parallel tracks today.
Speaker 1: On one hand, you have this extremely specific, sourced allegation
that Jeffrey Epstein was seventy five percent sure that Donald
Trump was the informant who started it all based on
that coded phrase the dog that hasn't.
Speaker 2: Barked, a suspicion that is bizarrely given some weight by
a contradictory public statement from a sitting Speaker of the House.
Speaker 1: And on the other hand, we explored the bigger structural
reason for why those contradictions exist in the first place.
Speaker 2: The lesson of the Anderson tapes. When the truth would
expose a secret, ongoing network, whether it's an informant status
or a covert operation, the system will always create a backfill,
a public story to cover the whole.
Speaker 1: I think the core lesson here is that information controls
is a fundamental feature of power. It's not a bug,
it's the whole system.
Speaker 2: Whether the conflict is a petty real estate feud or
the grand geopolitics of oil. If the real answer can
be said, the public story you get is going to
be structurally flawed. It's a puzzle made of pieces that
were never meant to fit because their only job is
to hide the missing piece.
Speaker 1: So it forces you to think differently about the news.
It's not just about what you're being told, it's about
what is conspicuously missing exactly.
Speaker 2: If the deepest secrets are hidden not just for traditional
national security, but to protect the narrative that props up
this network of capital and intelligence, a network that someone
like Mike Johnson apparently knows about, then you always have
to look beyond the official story.
Speaker 1: And that really leaves us with our final thought, a
question for you to consider, based on everything we've talked about.
Speaker 2: If we accept this idea that the truth is often
omitted to protect the structural integrity of this permanent, capital
backed intelligence network.
Speaker 1: Then what specific, maybe even non nefarious truths are we
being prevented from seeing in today's headlines. What stories about
I don't know, simple government mistakes or economic compromises are
being hidden just because admitting them would challenge the authorized reality.
Speaker 2: The question you always have to ask is who benefits
from the silence? Thank you for providing the sources for
this deep dive into a world of coded messages and
hidden networks.