Speaker 1: Welcome to Political Beatdown. I'm Ben Mysell is joined by
Michael Cohen. Cohen, you've been involved?
Speaker 2: Oh boy, here we go, comes out Cohen. You've been involved, No,
I haven't.
Speaker 1: You've been involved in a lot of legal cases in
your time, and a lot involving Donald Trump on both
civil and criminal sides of the isle. You've testified in Congress.
You've been involved in big document productions. And look, in
all seriousness, you are a very good lawyer.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: You spent your career as a lawyer, as a litigator,
as someone who then built up a business of your own,
were involved in lots of transactions, and so you've been
involved in document productions are a very big size and
scale and scope. So when we're talking about the production
of these Epstein files the handling of them, I've reflected
on my background as a litigator, where I've been dealing
with or I've dealt with terabytes of productions, like enough
documents to fill skyscrapers, and how I would assign a
team of five associates and that's what they would do
every day. This was before AI tools, and you would
go through them with keyword searches. You'd put certain documents
in different sections, and you know it would take a
long time, but you know you'd have ninety days. Sometimes
you may request one extension, but you get it done methodically, diligently,
and it would get done. I've never seen just from
structural standpoints, setting aside what we're dealing with here, which
is a child sex trafficking ring, right, and the fact
that there seems to be this massive cover up. You know,
take a basic there is massive cover up. I've never
seen something handled so bad just at every level to.
Speaker 2: Cover up or is it in competence or both?
Speaker 1: I think it's both, and that's where I was going
with this. Also, I think that there's part of it
is the cover up, and I think part of it
is incompetence, and we're seeing and both of those are
traits of this regime generally. And the way they're dealing
with this is frankly, how they deal with things abroad,
their trade negotiating. It's all this is. It is cover up, incompetence,
quid pro quo, criminality, all of this mix and then
brutal incompetence.
Speaker 2: See I turn around and I ascribed seventy five percent
to criminal to the cover up in twenty five percent
to incompetence.
Speaker 1: And I think you know, whether you make that eighty twenty,
whether you make that eighty five fifty, whatever it is. Yes,
there seems to be, you know, at its core, this
massive cover up. But then there also is, like you know,
they just showed a document right there where on the
one hand, the Trump regime is taking the position that
the perpetrators or the people who were not necessarily perpetrators,
but were who were involved in having conversations with Epstein
or involved in deals, but and perpetrators all this, that
all of them are the real victims, that they're the
ones who need to be protected. But then when you
go through some of these documents, they'll like, like this
one over here, they'll like leave a name unredacted but
redacted in other places. So you could be like, okay, well,
I see the name right there. You're trying to redact
it there. And you have Cash Patel testifying and saying
in the review there was no co conspirators at all
in the file. At no point in time has the
FBI and DOJ identified co conspirators, right, That's what Patel
testified to. When a Republican asked him questions. Right, it
was Senator Kennedy of Louisiana, Maga, Republican from Louisiana. You
know in that fake accent that he uses.
Speaker 2: Well, Cash Cash, Well.
Speaker 4: What do you do?
Speaker 1: You know the the name of the guy talks that
means real voice. And then Cash Patel said in our
review there were no co conspirators. And then you have
this document that literally says ten co conspirators. Yeah, and
so with all of this and I'll pass it to you.
You know, you have the Trump regime, you know, releasing
files yesterday more afternoonish, but not on the DOJ website.
So like we were able to access it because we
just searched the naming conventions of Batch eight, so we
saw these. Then they removed it and took it down.
You're like, why are you taking it down? Then they
changed the numbers on the documents, so it appeared that
some of these were deleted because they weren't the same numbers.
But then it's like, why are you changing the numbers
over the course of eight hours? And then you find
a document in there that looks that that raises a
lot of questions.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we're in a really strange situation right now, Ben,
And it's really hard to imagine that this is incompetence,
though some of it might be, much of it is
about cover up. And I'm really sort of tired right
because the way that they're doing, as you know, with
large document productions, it's not as if that thirty days
is enough time within which to do the proper reactions,
to do the beta stamping, to put it into a
file that is searchable, because it is not right now.
Two different things that need to be discussed here. First
and foremost, they didn't have thirty days. They've been at
this since March, so you had all of March, April, May, June,
July or don't right, it's almost like ten it's nine
to ten months that they had to do these reactions.
But they didn't do that, all right. Trump signed it
thirty days ago, December nineteenth. It was supposed to be
released lo and behold if they needed more time. Something
that you and every single lawyer knows. If you go
on the first time around, you say your honor, We apologize,
but we were unable to produce what we were what
we are required to pursuing to this order. We need
an additional thirty days. We need an additional sixty days,
but by January twentieth, by February first, whatever the date
would be, we will have everything required. But based upon
the sheer volume and the importance, the significance in order
to protect victims, blah blah blah, chances are that the
judge would have granted that. But instead you got this
sloppily redacted, non redacted series of documents that they're for
the stuff that is redacted. There is no reaction sheet
explaining why the redaction was there, which is also required.
They're dropping different documents over and over and over against
So we've now had three different sets of documents dropped
on our lap. All right, The first set came by
Foyer to the Epstein a state. Then all of a
sudden you have the government puts out the next one,
all right, and ultimately what ends up happening there a
lot of it is identical to what was originally dropped
by the Epstein estate. Well, now we have this newest set,
which is I don't know, a third set of the
same and more documents that were dropped the first time
and the second time. So as I'm going through some
of the documents. I'm saying, wait, wait, I saw this
not once before, but I've seen this twice before. Am
I going back to my in the wrong section and zone?
I want to go and use the search bar and
see whether or not there's anything there about Trump, about
Les Wexner, about you know whomever, Bill Clinton, or you know,
Woody Allen or Larry Summer. I want to see names
that I'm interested in trying to get an understanding on,
and so huh, that doesn't work. The photos, documents, emails
and so on. It's all redundant, and it's so difficult
because this is a massive, massive amount of documents, And
I'm saying to myself, could this be just sheer incompetence
or is it being done within which to overwhelm basically anybody.
Speaker 4: Unless you have a team of really sophisticated people that
can go through this. And then ben join me on
this one for a second, because this one blew my mind.
Somebody reached out to me and said, you know how
sloppy the redactions are. I said, no, I'm just trying
to sort of get my bearings so that I could
be factually accurate when I'm discussing the issue he goes,
I'm going to send you two documents. One is the
redacted document and the other is the document not in
the same.
Speaker 2: Form but unredacted. I said, what are you talking about.
They use a program that redax it unless you go ahead,
you copy it and then paste it into notes and
then it unredacts it for you. Could you imagine that?
So if there is sensitive information that's on there, there
is a better than likely chance if you copy that
document and you paste it into notes, it will automatically
unredact it. Do you remember when there was that thing
that took place with Obama's birth certificate when it was
fake It was generated by wasn't AI because we didn't
have AI back then, but it was a generated fake
document and then all you needed to do is to
highlight on it and then it changed it back to
the original document, which was somebody else that was changed.
Do you remember that took place with the birth certificate
of Obama. Well, it's the same sort of rushed, incompetent
job they did. And that's the problem when you have
when you have this sort of group of people who
are being held to a standard that far exceeds what
their competency.
Speaker 1: Level is right. Your buddy Jason Leopold over in Bloomberg,
his Foyer request showed back in March, there were a
thousand people FBI DOJ working on this, tens of thousands
of overtime hours back then. And then the Epstein Transparency
Act passes over thirty days ago at this point, and
then another one thousand people are put on it, and
I assume in the interim period as well, there were
thousands of people working on it. One hundred thousand documents,
or let's just say it's five hundred thousand documents, if
that's what we're talking about here. Actually not a lot
of documents in terms of the types of productions that
I've been part of. The productions I've been part of
in these massive Ponzi scheme cases where I used to
be a prosecuting litigator on in a civil setting where
I would work for like a receiver in these big
California Ponzi scheme cases against a defunct entity. One of
them I was involved in. It's called Medcap Medical Capital Holdings,
and they would create these special purpose vehicles, these SPVs
Medcap one, two, three, four, five six. People could go
and read about it It's an interesting case that I
was involved in, but we dealt with millions of documents,
tens of millions of documents, and I had a team
of five. So if you had a thousand lawyers an
FBI people and they just each looked at one hundred documents, right,
that could be accomplished in one day. That's one hundred
thousand documents reviewed right there. Yeah, that's a fairly easy review.
And so this review should have taken In my professional opinion,
I'll give the benefit of the doubt, one month, thirty
days with that size could have been done in the
most diligent and meticulous manner, and they've completely and utterly
botched it. And the way they've handled it also raises
these red flags where to the extent they want to
say right now, look, this docus is what they're saying
right now that this document that was sent it's a
letter from that purports to be from Jeffrey Epstein to
Larry Nasser. Yeah, that was said, and they're out there saying,
to be clear, this letter is a fake. Look it
has a Virginia postage on it. That's not where Epstein
served and looked.
Speaker 2: Also, is mailed four days after died.
Speaker 1: Well, look to pull back for a moment, and let's
remove Epstein. And you know, and again I mean this
in an endearing way. When you send mail from prison,
it goes through processing centers. It doesn't get sent out
the day of. You don't get first class mail service.
And so Virginia is actually one of the locations where they,
indeed do. It's a hub where mail gets routed and
it gets sent and whatever. It's not uncommon that it
would pass through Virginia. Does it mean that that was
actually sent by Epstein. No, but it's not outlandish that
someone writing from mcc sending a letter, that letter would
take several days to leave the prison, that it would
wind up in Virginia for processing and then be returned
to sender.
Speaker 2: Like so it's interesting. I want to just give you
the person effective on it, as you've been well. I
also was not permitted to send out mail really, yes,
believe it or not. But the way that it works
because of Jeffrey Epstein's high profile, all right, and because
of you had somebody like Bill Barr as the Attorney general,
who is as corrupt as anybody that's ever held that position.
What happens is they read the mail, and because it's
Jeffrey Epstein, it had to go through multiple layers of
review before which it would ultimately get sent out. So obviously,
you know, you can't just seal it, otherwise they'll of
course break the seal and then they'll just scotch tape
it closed. It probably was read by you know, the
camp counselor, and then by the case administrator, and then
by the assistant warden, and then ultimately approved by the
warden for release for many different reasons, again much of
which was coming from the weaponization of the Department of Justice.
So yeah, I agree with you. What I find to
me to be the most insane thing is everything today
is AI AI. You don't like something there, it's AI.
It's AI generated, you know, plain and simple. It's not real.
The FBI the DOJ released these documents, especially this one
between Jeffrey Epstein and Larry Nasser. To those who don't know,
Larry Nasser was the doctor for the gymnastics, the women's gymnastics,
who was accused and found guilty of sexually abusing a
bunch of the gymnasts. They're now claiming the underage girls
there that he was. They're now claiming that that document
is not real, that it was AI generated and they're
looking into it despite the fact they're the ones that
released it.
Speaker 1: Or or they're just saying that it was fake. Is
let's read Let's just read their official position, and let's
first start off with you know, you know, Midas Touch
was the first to break. We were the first to
break this story, and I think we did it actually
in a very responsible way how we reported on it,
because what we said was this letter was found in
the production, which it was. We talked about how prior
Foyer requests from twenty twenty three that the Associated Press
did mentioned that there was a letter that was found
between Epstein and Naser, not the actual letter, but emails
from the Bureau of Prisons right that reference that this
was uncovered. So we referenced that, and also that the FBI,
when it found this reported letter from Epstein to Nasser,
put it in for a forensic analysis of the handwriting
back in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty and there's we've
never seen the results of that. There's no document that
they produced that say the results turned out negative, but
they were concerned enough about it in real time right
in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty, that it was found
in the prison where Epstein was, Like this document wasn't
found to be clear like in Alaska or in a
target store, or like it wasn't slipped into the files
when Epstein allegedly died by suicide. This was at that prison.
So could another inmate learning that Epstein died by alleged
suicide have wrote this and set this thing in motion?
Could it have been another prisoner from another location that
set this It's a pretty complicated thing to think about,
especially if you don't know.
Speaker 2: The logical Why are we wasting our time talking about
something that's as logical as building a spaceship in your
backyard and using rubber bands to launch you into out
of space?
Speaker 1: And so you know, now the DOJ is actually responding
like a Twitter troll, like a PR crisis management to
the Midas post. So moments ago, the DOJ responded to Midas,
And let me just be very clear why, Like you're
the DOJ, why is the DOJ responding to Midas touch
posts with the The DOJ is not supposed to be
a criminal defense firm or a civil defense firm or
a legal firm for the President.
Speaker 2: Ben. Can you read the usdj's statement, right.
Speaker 1: I do, but I want to show you to the
so first what they did. What they did is they
put out a statement at ten thirty am. And here's
what they're ten thirty am said. And then I'll tell
you what they're twelve twenty seven said. And this is
why they don't have any credibility in anything. So at
ten thirty am they go. The Department of Justice is
currently looking into the validity of this alleged letter from
Epstein to Nasser, and we will follow up as soon
as possible. In the meantime. Three facts stand out. The
postmark on the envelope is Virginia, not New York, where
Jeffrey Epstein was jailed at the time. That's you and
I just discussed that that is actually not a red
flag for this being false. In fact, it actually is
indicative that it may actually be accurate. I don't know
one way or another, but it being from Virginia or
being processed in Virginia is actually not a red flag
if you know the way prison mail works. The next
one it says the return address listed the wrong jail
where Epstein was held and did not include his in
mal number, which is required for outgoing mail. It was
returned to sender. The envelope was processed three days after
Epstein's death. The processing, as you know, Cohen, actually is
not a red flag because the processing of prison mail
takes many days. So they put that out and I'm like, okay, great,
you want to conduct a thorough investigation. Well, first off,
where is the FBI's analysis that they said they were
doing in twenty nineteen. We don't have that. Wasn't that
the analysis? Okay, So you're doing analysis now right before
Christmas Eve, December twenty third. So, Cohen, how long do
you think the analysis would take in something like this
to get it to the right types of people who
do signature analysis and handwriting, Like, what's your expectation of
a thorough investigation into this? What do you think it would.
Speaker 2: Take three hours?
Speaker 1: Well, for the Trump regime, it took them ten thirty
to twelve twenty. They come back and they go The
FBI has now confirmed this alleged letter from Epstein to
Nasaus fake. The fake letter was received by the jail
flagged for the FBI at the time. The FBI made
this conclusion based on the following facts, the writing does
not appear to match Jeffrey Epstein's. Okay, so then show
us the report of the handwriting expert that wasn't produced
with this. Where was the we know the FBI made
this analysis back then, that's not in the production the letter.
Then it's just the things that they said in their
social media posts. So they determine an.
Speaker 2: Issue as well, what do you say, I have one
additional issue here, tell me all right, first and foremost,
why is it in the FBI file? Then altogether, they
are the ones that released it. They when they released it,
they didn't release it and say or have it stamped
that this is a fake or a fraud. They released it,
and then ultimately because people picked it up and it
became a story that now all of a sudden you
get the usual words coming. It has been confirmed. Therefore, Ben,
you don't need because the DOJ has now confirmed that
it's a fake, you don't have to check. You don't
have the right to ask any additional questions. Just accept
their response to it and move on. That's the whole point. Look.
Speaker 1: Roger Sullenberger, who also reported on this moments ago, wrote
the following this morning, DOJ tweeted that some Trump allegations
in today's batche were false no specificity, and they decide
to specify this letter hours later. FBI requested a forensic
handwriting analysis in twenty twenty, but DOJ's new tweet explaining
its conclusion does incite an analysis. The White House would
like to make it seem impossible to tell what's credible
versus what is incredible, and they will happily shape this
release to try to discredit responsible journalists trying in good
faith to report accurately and evenly about what is included
in the docs. Maybe the forensic analysis confirmed it's not
Epstein's handwriting. It would be nice to know that. But
you take a look not just at that document right there,
you take a look at some of the other things
that were part of this Batch eight. And let's pull
up this right here, which is a subpoena in connection
with Delane Maxwell's case to mar Alago. A subpoena by
the Southern District of New York to mar Alago you
see right here, dated October fifth, twenty twenty one, summoning
them to produce records and to show up all any
and all employment records relating to redacted. That's Trump's like home,
Like just think about like, it's not shouldn't be a home.
You know, it's the resort where recharges membership. But his
home was subpoened for employment records in connection with Delane
Maxwell's child sex trafficking case where she was convicted. Then
there is this document right here, sent January eighth, twenty twenty,
and this is from federal prosecutors to each other. It says,
for your situational awareness, wanted to let you know that
the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump
traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously
has been reported or that we were aware of, including
during the period we would expect to charge in a
Maxwell case. In particular, he is listed as a passenger
on at least eight flights between nineteen ninety three and
nineteen ninety six, including at least four flights on which
Maxwell was also present. He is listed as having traveled with,
among others, and at various times, Marlon Maples, his daughter Tiffany,
and his son Eric on one flight in nineteen ninety three,
though he and Epstein are the only two listed passengers.
On another the only three passengers are Epstein, Trump, and
then twenty year old This is redacted. On the other
two flights, two of the passengers, respectively were women who
would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case. We've just
finished reviewing the full records, more than one hundred pages,
a very small script, and didn't want any of this
to be a surprise down the road. In connection with
Bannon's build the Wall scheme case, they found a photo
of Donald Trump and Gilane Maxwell. You know there, and
you know, you know, I think it's fair to say,
and I think we always have to be very careful
in reporting it.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Just because you're in a photo with someone isn't indicative
of guilt, isn't indicative by guilt of association. But this
constant barrage here of every step of the way, calling
the Epstein files a hoax, not turning it over, the
drips and drabs, all of this behavior is just not
normal behavior.
Speaker 2: So what it does is it leads to more questions
by like our brigaders and other people that are interested
in the truth. They want the facts, They want to
know what really took place and what didn't In fact,
you know, people are right now clamoring because the as
we will all say, the victims deserve to have the
truth put out there. But we don't get that. What
you get is you get one cover up after another bend.
And what that does is it just makes the whole
thing uglier, dirtier, and messier. And it just makes Trump
look guilty. Whether he is or he isn't. That we
will see when ultimately all the files come out. But
the fact that they're hiding things the way that they are,
it just gives the presumption of guilt.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and where are all of the FBI witness statements
and survivor statements. What you would do is you would
redact the name of the survivor or the witness or
the victim, and you would produce them. That's what this
law requires, and it doesn't require you to remove the
entire statement. We should protect the identity and release it.
None of those have been produced. When I spoke to
congress Member Roe Kanna, what he had said is those
are actually the most important documents. He wanted to see
the draft indictments, He wanted to see the FBI witness statements,
and he wanted to see all of the FBI reports
on this matter. We basically have none of those right now,
and here we are December twenty third, and the DOJ
is on social media going after Midas and other reporters
who are accurately just reporting on what the documents say,
and if they were if they released everything, and just
imagine this con and then we'll take our first and
only break of the show. But imagine they did a
press conference. We're releasing everything. We want to let you
know that there are high profile individuals who are mentioned
in here. Everyone should be given the presumption of innocence.
That's our system that we have. Photographs are not necessarily
guilt by association. We are comfortable that after a thorough review,
that the people will be able to just make that
discernment because we trust in people's intelligence. We've made a
diligent effort to redact all of the names of the
victims and the survivors. We have not redacted the name
of men who are friends with Epstein or who were
perpetrators or co conspirators with Epstein. Their names will be
out there. There may be subsequent investigations that may be
taking place, but that this is the status of it.
You now have everything. And look, Trump made what I
just said there his signature like that was like his
signature issue. It was one of his key issues. Yep,
it was not the key issue of Biden. By the way,
there was still a criminal case pending against Elane Maxwell
when Biden was in office where you couldn't turn over
these But it wasn't his. It wasn't that it This
was Trump's thing, Like he was the guy who weaponized
Epstein against his political enemy. That was his thing.
Speaker 2: So when we come back after the break, Ben, I
actually want to talk about some of the photos that
have been released and why there are things that can
obviously be deduced from them despite the fact that they
are not there's no full context to it, but that
there's enough, which is why I believe that the Trump administration,
why the DOJ, why the FBI must release all the
files redacted only the names of the victims, all right,
Other than that, everything has to because every single day,
when more and more documents are released, whether it's by
my buddy Leopold through feuer requests from the estate or
by the DOJ, or just simply documents that somehow get
dumped into the system, again. It makes Trump look more
and more guilty, plain and simple.
Speaker 1: Here's an interesting development, and this network I think is
on the front lines of this reporting. Quite literally. We're
being attacked by the DOJ quite literally. Ro Conna and
Democratic Congress member who worked with Thomas Massey to put
forward this discharge petition. So Conna spoke with me, Yes,
everybody should go and watch. Make sure you're subscribed by
the way to the Minas Dutch YouTube channel. You may
think you're subscribed, but you may not actually be subscribed,
So just just double check. He said. We broke this
news on Midas that there are FBI whistleblowers do J
whistleblowers right now. We're looking for protection from Congress who
know what's up. Let me show you what Conna told
me yesterday. We got that clip. Let's play that, Jeremy,
if we got it. I don't know if you can
share this, but any f I don't know if you
can share this, but any FBI whistle blowers or DOJ
whistleblowers who maybe on the horizon who's upset about the
way this was hand to do may.
Speaker 5: We've had some approaching the our office and the committee.
I obviously can't get into get into the details. But
there are people who are upset about the non compliance
with the law and they don't want to be held accountable.
Right anyone who is at the just Deepartment who's involved
with this, who's not complying, could be prosecuted for obstruction
of justice. Now, Pam Bondi's not going to prosecute them,
and Donald Trump isn't going to have an attorney general
who prosecutes them. But you know, in twenty twenty nine,
we're going to have a democratic president, and that democratic
president is going to have an attorney general, and that
attorney general is going to prosecute the law, not out
of vindictiveness, out of just saying that you can't commit
crimes and.
Speaker 1: Get away with it.
Speaker 5: By the way, I think that should apply to crimes,
not just in violating the Epstein Transparency Act. I think
it should have applied to crimes with ice crimes in
terms of the strikes in the Caribbean, we need accountability
before reconciliation. So if you're at the Justice Department and
you know that you're violating the law, you probably don't
want obstruction of justice charges brought against you. And that's
why I think more and more people are speaking up.
Speaker 2: It's true. By the way, it's one hundred percent true.
The only person who has immunity, remember from that stupid
Supreme Court decision, is the President himself. He's the only one.
Heg seth can ultimately be charged for these illegal strikes
on these vessels or when I received, well, yes, except
chances are before Trump ends up leaving, he will do
a blanket pardon to everyone, very similar to what he
did with the sixteen hundred. You know, I just wanted
to say quickly before we go to break. You know,
when I was talking about the photos right where you
have Trump in these photos on aircraft, and there's five
or six or eight young girls.
Speaker 1: Look, that's just be clear, you got it. He's taken
a lot of photos with young girls. There's a few
on the airplane that I think are ultimately AI photos.
Speaker 2: So you know, oh, well, no, no, there are some
that are not all right, there are somewhere he is
with young girls. And now I'm going to acknowledge You're
right there are some that are AI, that they're fakes
and so on, But there are a lot of photos.
The point I'm trying to make regardless of whether they
were in an office or regardless of whether they were
in Epstein's home, regardless if they were on an aircraft
or in a car, doesn't make a difference. Gotta be
honest with you, how are you not thinking to yourself,
what are these children doing here? I mean, this isn't
a bar mitzvah. This isn't a confirmation right, This isn't
a sweet sixteen party that he somehow was invited to
because it's a family friend. This is a trip on.
Whether it's an aircraft, a car, in an office of song,
what are these kids doing? See? Trump's not stupid. It's
not like he was oblivious to the fact that the
children I've never been to a party right of a
friend of mine in a house, And yeah, maybe their
kids were there with a couple of their friends, but
didn't have strange kids who are completely unrelated to anybody
at a party just simply hanging out. And that that
is the part that again we need the full context.
Speaker 1: Look, I think what you say there hasn't really ever
been said. I know it has not, but not with
that level of kind of clarity, which is to simply say,
what do you think was happening when these young girls
were there, What do you when they were at Marra
a Lago, when they were in the pool together, when
they were when there were parties of these girls who
were models right for these different pageants and stuff, and
they were at an age range between fourteen and twenty eight,
but really when you do an analysis, it was really
more between like sixteen and twenty one. What grown man
does that in your forties and your fifties, which is
when he was friends with Epstein and when he was
with these girls. So the question to be asked that
no one's really ever asked him at a press conference, though,
is you know you did you did hold parties and
you you attended or hung out with young girls when
their parents weren't there, Like, just do you think that
that's something that forty should.
Speaker 2: Have possibly triggered a thought that there shouldn't be you
shouldn't be going on here.
Speaker 1: Like you wouldn't be you know, like if I was
invited to an event and I show up, you know,
at my neighbor's event and it's all a group of
eighteen to twenty two year old girls and three or
four men, you have a it's a choice to stay
there and say you know what this is? This is
you get the hell out of it. You don't, you
don't go in there, right, And so you know, we
did a video on this and by the way you
report it also what's going on? We did a video
on this on the Midas Touch network where we show
these pageants that he would do with these little girls,
and we have the videos of them. And it was
the Look of the Year contest. The Guardian did a
very good article on it, but we unearthed the videos
and I think it's got like five point five million
views or something right now on YouTube where it was him.
I think it was Jean Luke Brunell. It was the
guy who ran Elite Model Management. I'm drawing a blank,
John Casablanca. You know. It was it was like this crew, right,
and you have these girls who look fourteen, fifteen, sixty seventeen,
you know, maybe at the oldest twenty two, you know,
in bathing suits walking around him being on a yacht,
like you know, he's on a yacht, you know.
Speaker 2: But can I push back here for a quick second,
because the Look of the Year was a real event
that was a part of Ford Model Agency called Ford's
Look of the Year, where it was this contest so
to speak, where they found the model of the year
and so on, gave them a big Ford contract and
so on. So it was with elite, elite models. I'm sorry, elite, right, right, right,
elite ultimately right, maybe he was a judge for it
and so on. You know that, I don't see the
problem of being around it was a legitimate you know,
the look of the year. The elite model's Look of
the Year was actually a legitimate you know thing. Now
what they would doing for it, that's a whole nother story.
But being a judge at a Look of the Year
contest that that's not the part people need to focus on.
Speaker 1: The question is though, and when you watch the videos
that we put up there, first off, just the idea
of fourteen year old girls and fifteen year old girls
in bathing suits walking around men, like, let's be start
with that premise. But second part of what they would
do after is you know, the after parties and the
way people described what would happen at the after parties
on the yacht and you know, and I'm not suggesting
that Trump Dody did this or didn't do it at all,
but the reporting of also what went down with that?
It said men old enough to be their grandparents would
be grinding on them and set you know, would be
grinding on the girls on on the yachts. I think
it was the spirit of New York. People should read
the Guardian piece and you should watch didn't it.
Speaker 2: Actually Casablancas end up marrying some one of the one
of the winners, and so I think she was fit.
Speaker 1: Hell you know, so he so he died, so two things.
So Jean Luke Brenell, who was involved in the underage
sex trafficking, he died in France in prison, in similar
circumstances to Epstein, very suspicious death by suicide. Casablancis allegedly
died of I think throat cancer twenty you know, around
that time. And Casablancis was with like fifteen year old
girls and sixteen year old and he married like a
sixteen year old girl, which was his section. Here what
that is? Okay, we have to take our first break. Break. Okay,
we're taking a break. When we come back, we will
talk about the Supreme Court's ruling against the Trump regime. Reminder,
make sure you subscribe to this YouTube channel subscribe to
Michael Cohen's YouTube channel at the Michael Cohen shows the
name of his YouTube channel. Check out his audio podcast,
It's called Maya Kulpa. Wherever audio podcasts are available, subscribe
to the Midas Touch substack at midasplus dot com, and
then subscribe to Michael Cohen's substack by searching Michael Cohen
on substack. Let's take that first quick break, two finger salute.
When we come back, and we'll talk about the sprime
court ruler.
Speaker 2: You ever opened up your closet, You put on his shirt,
and instantly you wonder why clothing companies hate us too
tight in one spot, ballooning out in another, like it's
personally offended by your existence. Well, that used to be
my entire wardrobe until I switched to True Classic. I mean,
these guys had one mission in mind, premium comfortable clothing
for real people who don't want to drop designer money
just to look like they bother to get dressed. And
clearly the mission worked. Twenty five million shirts, five million customers,
two hundred thousand five star reviews. That's not a fan base,
that's a movement. But here's what hooked me. True Classic
isn't about fashion theater, It's about confidence. You throw one
on and suddenly the shirt fits the way shirts are
supposed to fit, Tailored where you want it, relaxed where
you need it, no bunching, no weird shoulder puff, no
stiff fabric making you feel like, I don't know, you're
wearing a cardboard cutout of yourself. And now they've got
options for everyone, man, women, kids, which makes holiday gifting
dangerously easy. And instead of guessing sizes or I don't know,
buying someone a sweater they'll pretend to like for exactly
fourteen seconds, you give them something that they'll actually wear,
and not just once like for real. I've been wearing
True Classic for a while now, and I'm telling you,
the moment it goes on, you feel the difference. It's
not trying too hard, it's not under performing. It's just
a clean, sharp, comfortable fit that makes getting dressed the
easiest part of your day. And I'll take that as
a win. So skip the pricey designer stuff that costs
more than the therapy session. Give comfort, give confidence, Give
True Classic and you could grab them at Amazon, Target, Costco,
Sam's Club, or avoid humanity entirely and just ordered straight
from True Classic dot Com Forward slash Beat. So upgrade
your wardrobe and save on True Classic at Trueclassic dot
Com Forward slash Beat. That's True Classic t r U
E C L A S s I C dot Com
Forward slash Beat. Go now, Cold nights, cozy blankets, and
souls out of office gummies. It's my new favorite routine.
Throw on die Hard for the one hundred and fiftieth time,
grab a gummy, and suddenly the world stops yelling at me. Look,
I've tried to ways to unwind. Some people they just
pour another glass of wine. Others they scroll or doom
scroll into oblivion. Me I take Soul. They're out of
office gummies. They hit the sweet spot just enough buzz
to relax without turning your evening into a hangover horror story.
I felt calm, sharper, and shockingly productive, like I was
winning at life again. Soul is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Their gummies
boost your mood, relax your mind, and even make creativity
show up uninvited. From a microdose of one point five
milgram to a full fifteen milligram gummy for a more
elevated experience. You control the vibe. There's no drama, no regret,
no calories screaming at you. And here's a twist. If
gummies aren't your thing, check out their new out of
office beverage, alcohol free, smooth and socially acceptable. At the
awkward office party you promised yourself you'd survive. Everything Soul
makes is vegan, gluten free, low and sugar, federally legal
and grown right here in the USA. I mean, it's
like self Care got upgraded to luxury mode without the
sticker shock. So bring on the holiday cheer and treat
yourself or someone you love to sold this season. And
right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off.
That's thirty percent off your entire order. So go right
now to get sold dot com. That's g E T
s O U L dot com and use code beat
b E A T that's get sold dot com promo
code beat for thirty percent off. Go now.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Political Beatdown. So I'm gonna give you
some options to give this two fingers. So first let
me show you Jdvans. He's an option. We'll be interactive
with the audience here. So jdvans at that Turning Point
Bizarro event that they held in Phoenix this past weekend.
So he's giving a speech there and Nicki Minaj called
him the Great Assassin to Erica Kirk, and then she's like,
oh my god, I can't believe I called him an
assassin at an event like this. So JD. Vance, Let's
see what he has to say. He talks about that
the great news about the Trump regime is that you
don't have to apologize for being white anymore. I know
that was a big issue for you, Cohen and a
lot of other people, and this is what the Trump
regime has addressed right here. I mean, the level of
racism is just off the charts. Here, play this clip.
Speaker 5: In the United States of America, you don't have to
apologize for being white anymore.
Speaker 1: Your other option is Erica Kirk from the same event,
who described someone who was on stage with her as
being just like Charlie the biggest grift I mean gift,
I mean grit. Ever here, listen to what she had
to say here, Play this clip.
Speaker 3: Despite the devastating loss of Charlie Kirk, my incredible husband
at UVU, Caleb has persisted with the same grift. Excuse me,
gift grit. It has been a long day. Trust me,
You're not a grifter, honey.
Speaker 1: It's all good. You You've got Nicki Minaj, this special
guest at this bizarro event. Basically, in my opinion, looks
like she's threatening the life of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Here's what she says here play this clip.
Speaker 6: Well, mister Newsom, Dan Newscomb, we don't have a problem
cleaning up the scum if we have to please tread lightly,
That's what I would say to Gaby Pooh.
Speaker 2: And then and then took a question that I was
thinking when I watched that, and I did watch it.
The fuck is Nicki Minaj right? She? I mean she
could sing I get it. Gives a shit what Nicki Minaj,
who was a half in the bag moron? But that
she turned on saying, I mean, I'm, I'm there's no
point go ahead, keep going because I know my two
finger salutes going to.
Speaker 1: All right, I'll give you one that you're not going
to do, even though you give it to him every day.
Donald Trump threatening to invade Greenland for national security. Here's
Donald Trump saying, we need to take over Greenland. Let's
play it.
Speaker 2: But he he felt very strongly we needed for nationals.
We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals.
Speaker 1: We had some. We have so many sites for minerals
and oil and everything.
Speaker 5: We have more oil than any other country in the world.
Speaker 1: We need Greenland for national security.
Speaker 2: And if you take a look at Greenland, you look
up and down the coast, you have Russian and Chinese
ships all over the place.
Speaker 1: Or you have Barry Weiss, the new editor in chief
at CBS, who killed the sixty minutes episode on the
conditions in El Salvador at the Seacot where the Trump
regime tortured these Venezuelans who suffered physical torture, sexual torture
at Seacott. Sixty minutes did an expose on it. Barry Weiss,
who's now the head of CBS, because she's focused on
what the Trump regime wants her to do, and CBS
has sadly become regime television, she killed the segment. So
those are your options.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let me be crystal clear that it is a
toss up. First of all, Nicki Minaj, who I don't
particularly care for her music anyway, but the fact that
one she's threatening newsome why she clearly is trying to
get the attention of Trump number two. All right, the
stupidity that she utters is just again, I don't understand
why she's even there. They're looking to try to build ratings,
and so they bring her on. But then you have
Barry Weiss who ends up doing what we need to
all fear in this country, and that is state sponsored media,
which is exactly what they have for example in Russia,
or China, or North Korea or you know in Saudi Arabia.
It's all state sponsored where you can't say anything or
do anything without the supreme leader, the monarchy, dictator, the
ruler unless you get their say, otherwise you can get jailed. However,
Barry Weiss, in her infinite stupidity all of CBS. That
entire episode was actually aired in Canada on streaming, and
so just as soon as people pople we're watching it,
they started videotaping it and so and now it is everywhere.
So who gives two shits about CBS. We're all putting
it out there. Thanks to places like Midas Touch Network,
where you have independent journalism, you're not worried about Oh,
the FCC's gonna come shut you down. Right, You're not
going and paying money to this administration because you need
something from the FCC and if you don't, you're not
gonna get it. So to Barry Weiss for being a
fucking moron and not even realizing that that segment was
already out there for all of us to see. And
once you see it, unfortunately you can't unsee it. Fuck you, Barry.
To Nicki Minaj for being just the idiot schmuck that
you are stick to singing, because when it comes to politics,
you're as fucking stupid as anybody I've ever met. So
to you two, Nikki, that one's for you, Barry Weiss,
to you, fuck you both.
Speaker 1: The idea of Michael Cohen giving Nicki Minaj and Barry
Weiss a two finger salute would not be on my
bingo card before Christmassy? Where are you going to be?
Speaker 2: Ben?
Speaker 1: On December twenty third, at two to twenty five pm Eastern,
I'm going to be sitting with Michael. Imagine if you
told you told me this in twenty twenty, twenty eighteen
or twenty seventeen, Ben, where are you going to be
in seven years from now or eight years from now,
you're going to be hosting a show with Michael Cohen.
This is when you worked for Trump. Okay, and what
are you going to be doing? You and Cohen are
going to be having a segment where you give people
the two finger salute. Okay, so we give them middle fingers.
Is it like a big audience? Yet, you guys are
going to have one of the biggest YouTube channels in
the world. Okay, I'm thinking about it.
Speaker 2: Rushes it. By the way, Nicki Minaj is just she's
a trash big yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, who are you gonna give the two fingers salute to?
Well Nicki Minaj and Barry Weiss, Well, why well, they've
created state regime media and you're gonna be living in
an authoritarian country.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Nicki Minaj is now going to be with the regime.
Barry Weiss is gonna be running state regime media. It's
like it's like Biff with Back to the Future.
Speaker 2: It's all right, you know.
Speaker 1: It's like, Okay, it's interesting times we live in, but
times we live in where we fight together as a
community each and every day and we fight back against
this horrific and terrible regime. Let me quickly just remind
everybody about what happened with the Supreme Court moments ago.
Although we have a full hot take on it on
the YouTube channel. The Trump regime suffered a huge loss.
As Kyle Chenny reports, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Trump administration lack the authority to federalize and deploy the
National Guard to patrol in Illinois. And it's seems to
have pretty far reaching applications. This ruling to say that
in the statute, in order to federalize the National Guard,
it basically says that you would have to require that
you be able to You couldn't do this other than
by the regular forces of the United States Military. And
what the Supreme Court says is that based on the
circumstances here, you did not need the unite the record
before it, you do not need the military to be
dealing with these issues. That the National Guard is part
of the military, it's part of the armed services, and
this and under the posse combatatis and and just the
Constitution in general, this is not the role of the
of the military. So its implications are actually to me
beyond in Illinois. It impacts other you know, impacts all
of what Trump's doing. I find it interesting that Jeff
lamb Injury, who is the governor of Louisiana, basically called
the National Guard on himself in New Orleans right after
this ruling. And he's a guy who Trump appointed to
conquer Greenland. I guess when we asked the twenty seventeen
version of me, oh, he's gonna, well, he's gonna want
to conquer Greenland. Yeah, and he's calling Canada the fifty
first state. Okay, So that's where we're at right now, Cohen.
But look, we approach Christmas Eve with a country in shambles,
but with the people being resilient. The people have stayed
strong throughout all of this. This community has continued to grow.
And that's where we are as we approach Christmas Eve,
as we approach the new year. And it's an honor
to host this show with you, Michael Cohen.
Speaker 2: So it's an honor to be with you. It's an
honor to have been with Midas touched since literally the
day that you guys, that you and the boys, the
brothers started, you know, like family. And I'm thankful, you know,
for all of you, for this network, for all of
our brigaders and the various supporters that we have, whether
it's our YouTube channel, whether it's here on Midas Touched
Network with our political beatdown. I may occulpe on Friday,
I actually have what do you call it? I have
a parness Aaron Parnis on with me. It's very interesting,
very interesting conversation. He's truly a very you know, very
interesting young man, son of my buddy Lev Parnish. And
you know all the various things that I do, Ben
with you, and you know with our brigaders, and you
know all of all of you. And so I want to,
like Ben, just wish each and every one of you
a very merry Christmas. To those that are celebrating Knakah,
I hope you had a wonderful Hanukah, and everybody please
be safe, most importantly and have a very happy and
a very healthy New Year. And I I promise you
as we continue and Midas Touch Network continues to grow
day after day after day after day, as long as
we keep our foot on the guests. Twenty twenty six
belongs to us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, everybody. We appreciate you. Everybody hit subscribe. Let's
get to six million here, Subscribe to Michael Cohen's audio
podcast Maya Kulpa. Go check that out right now. Subscribe
to his substack Michael Cohen. Subscribe to Midas plus dot com.
That's our substack. Subscribe to this YouTube channel and subscribe
to Michael Cohen's YouTube channel at The Michael Cohen Show.
Thank you everybody so much. We appreciate you, We're grateful
for you. Have a great one. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanikah,
Happy Kwan's great to have you part of this community,
whether you celebrate any of these holidays or not. Thank you,
thank you, thank you. We'll see you next time. On
Political Beatdown, Shout out brogators and shout out Midas Mighty.
Speaker 2: Another right hand