Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Thrilling Threads. I am. I'm honestly
just vibrating with energy for this one. You know how,
sometimes we pull on a thread and well it just breaks,
or maybe it just leads to a big old knot.
Speaker 2: It happens part of the process. Sometimes research is just
a dead end.
Speaker 1: But today, oh, today's different. Today we are pulling on
a thread that feels like it's attached to I don't know,
a stick of dynamite. We are looking at a story
that completely upends the usual political map.
Speaker 2: It really does.
Speaker 1: It's a story about loyalty, it's about potential betrayal, and
it's about a secret so dark that it has become
the defining shadow of our time.
Speaker 2: It's a fascinating case study. I mean, usually when we
analyze political conflict, it's so binary. It's team A versus
Team B, it's left versus right, pretty straightforward.
Speaker 1: And you know the players exactly.
Speaker 2: But what we are looking at today is a fracture
inside one of those teams. It's a crack right down
the middle of a movement.
Speaker 1: It's a collision between like the promise of a movement
and the the star creality of its leadership. It's really something.
Speaker 2: It's a perfect way to put it exactly.
Speaker 1: And for everyone listening, I want you to just settle
in for a minute. Maybe you're driving, maybe you're at
the gym, maybe you're just you know, dooing scrolling. Put
the phone down for a second. You really need to
visualize this, Okay. I want to set the stage with
a scenario that and I'm not kidding. If I pitched
it as a fictional screenplay, you would tell me it's
two on the nose, too unrealistic.
Speaker 2: Right laid out for us, I'm intrigued, Okay.
Speaker 1: Imagine a political leader, a titan, a man who has
built not just a voter base, but like a fan base,
a whole movement, and he positions himself as the ultimate outsider, right.
Speaker 2: The populist archetype, the man of the people, the.
Speaker 1: Wrecking ball, the guy who's going to smash the corrupt elites.
That's the entire brand, got it right? Now, Imagine his
most loyal soldier, and I'm talking about the person who
is the absolute tip of the spear, the one who
is on TV every single night defending him no.
Speaker 2: Matter what, the true believer.
Speaker 1: The one whose entire political identity. Their whole brand is
wrapped up one hundred percent in being his shield.
Speaker 2: Okay, the rider die, the praetorian guard.
Speaker 1: I'm with you, Yes, exactly. Now imagine that person, the
one you would expect to, you know, take a bullet
for him, suddenly turning around, looking right into a camera
and saying, he is stopping the truth from coming out.
Speaker 2: Wow, and not just any truth, I'm guessing.
Speaker 1: No, that's the dynamite. She's accusing him of suppressing the
one thing that his base seems to care about most.
She's accusing him of protecting the very rich, powerful elites
that he swore an oath to destroy.
Speaker 2: That creates a massive amount of cognitive dissonance, doesn't it.
I mean, it's like finding out that I don't know
Batman is secretly funding the Joker. It just doesn't compute
with the narrative we've all been sold. It breaks the
story and.
Speaker 1: The subject matter. Here adds this whole other layer of intensity.
We aren't talking about a budget dispute. We aren't talking
about you know, zoning laws or trade tariffs, so we
will get to some of that later.
Speaker 2: No, this is the big one.
Speaker 1: We are talking about the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Speaker 2: The third rail of American culture right now, maybe global culture.
Speaker 1: It really is. I mean, for the last decade, the
name Epstein has become shorthand for the ultimate evil. For
a lot of people, it represents the deep state.
Speaker 2: It represents this idea that there is a predatory class
of billionaires and powerful people who can abuse anyone, even children,
and just get away with.
Speaker 1: It because they have friends in high places.
Speaker 2: Right and for a huge part of the electra, specifically
the Maggie Basse, exposing those files is like the Holy Grail.
It's not just a policy point, it's a crusade.
Speaker 1: It is the mechanism by which they believe the swamp
will finally be drained. They believe that once those names
are out, the whole corrupt system just comes crashing down.
Speaker 2: It's the key that unlocks everything.
Speaker 1: So when you have an allegation that the leader of
the drain the Swamp movement, it's actually the one standing
on the drain holding the plug in place. Well, that
is a thread we absolutely have to pull on.
Speaker 2: It forces us to reevaluate everything. It makes you ask
is the movement really about justice or is it about
protecting a certain group of people to help.
Speaker 1: Us navigate this, this whole maze. We are diving into
a really fascinating piece of source material. We're looking at
a video from the YouTube channel Brian Tyler Cohen. The
video is titled Breaking Marjorie Taylor Green exposes Trump Epstein Update.
Speaker 2: And this is a great source for what we do
here because it gives us two distinct layers of information
to work with.
Speaker 1: Right, first, you have the primary source material itself. We've
got these video clips of Representative Marjorie Taylor Green MTG
speaking in her own words. Yeah, and let me tell you,
she is speaking candidly.
Speaker 2: It doesn't feel scripted at all, not at all.
Speaker 1: This is in some polished press release written by a
comms team. This sounds like a person who is genuinely frustrated,
maybe a little confused, and honestly, maybe a little bit
heartbroken by what she's found.
Speaker 2: It sounds raw. You can almost hear the disci illusionment
in her voice.
Speaker 1: And then the second layer is the analysis from Brian
Tyler Cohen. He takes those raw clips and he contextualizes them.
He connects the dots between what MTG is admitting and
the broader political strategy he sees at play.
Speaker 2: He builds an argument that what we're seeing isn't an accident,
it's actually a feature of the system, not a bug.
Speaker 1: So our mission today here on Thrilling Threads is to
unspool this narrative. We're going to walk through the timeline.
We need to understand the mechanics of this discharge petition
she talks about. We need to get into the psychology
of the pressure campaign she describes, and we have.
Speaker 2: To talk about that phone call, that exclusive phone call
in September.
Speaker 1: Oh, we're definitely going to break that down. And wait
until you hear the key quote. It is a genuine
jaw dropper. And then we're going to analyze the con
man argument that Cohen presents. Who is actually being protected
here and why?
Speaker 2: And just a quick disclaimer before we really jump into
the deep end. Here, we are reporting on the content
of this video. We're discussing the claims made by Marjorie
Taylor Green and the analysis provided by Brian Tyler Cohen.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: We aren't here to endorse a political party. We aren't
here to tell you how to vote. We're simply here
to look at the arguments being made to examine the
evidence presented in the source and to see where this
particular and very thrilling thread leads us.
Speaker 1: We are the detectives in this scenario, just looking at
the clues on the board. So let's start at the
very beginning. Let's talk about this setup. Segment one, the
discharge petition.
Speaker 2: This is where the procedural drama begins. And it's more
interesting than it sounds.
Speaker 1: No discharge petition sounds like something you'd see a doctor for,
but in Congress, it's actually a really dramatic, almost revolutionary tool.
Can you break down what this actually is because most
people think Congress just, you know, votes on things. But
it's not that simple, is it not at all.
Speaker 2: It's actually incredibly difficult to get a vote on anything
in the House of Representatives. Usually the Speaker of the
House has, for all intents and purposes, total control. The
speaker is the gatekeeper.
Speaker 1: So nothing gets to the floor without their blessing.
Speaker 2: Pretty much, if the Speaker doesn't want a bill to
see the light of day, they just bury it in committee.
It sits in a pile of paper and gathers dust forever.
It's a quiet death for legislation.
Speaker 1: So it's a way to kill something without ever having
to publicly vote no on it. Yeah, you just never
let the vote happen exactly.
Speaker 2: It's a pocket veto by leadership. But the rules of
the House have this kind of emergency escape patch. It's
called a discharge petition, and it is essentially a mutiny maneuver.
Speaker 1: A mutiny. I like that it.
Speaker 2: Allows the rank and file members, the regular congress people,
to bypass the speaker entirely.
Speaker 1: It's like going over your boss's head straight to the CEO.
Speaker 2: Precisely, if they can get a majority of signatures that's
two hundred and eighteen members to sign a physical petition,
they can force a bill out of that committee grave
and onto the floor for an immediate vote.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: It's a way of saying, we don't care what leadership wants.
The majority of us demand this happens now.
Speaker 1: So it's a rebellion. It's a very public, very aggressive move,
specially if you're doing it against your own party's leadership.
Speaker 2: It is. It's very rare because it burns a lot
of bridges. You don't do it unless you feel it's
absolutely necessary, and in.
Speaker 1: This case, the rebellion was about releasing the Epstein files.
That was the bill. Simple release the files. Now, you
would think, given the rhetoric we hear every single day
from that side of the aisle, that everyone will be
rushing to sign this thing.
Speaker 2: You would absolutely think so if you just listen to
the speeches, if you read the tweets, fighting the state
and exposing Epstein is supposed to be the number one priority.
Speaker 1: But here is the first major shocker from the source video.
MTG claims that there were only four four Republicans who
signed this petition.
Speaker 2: Just four. It's a shockingly small number.
Speaker 1: Four people out of the entire Republican conference, out of
all the people who go on TV and scream about
corruption and the swamp, only four we're willing to put
their pen to paper.
Speaker 2: That is a staggering statistic. It highlights this huge gap
between let's call it perform politics and actual legislative action.
Speaker 1: She lists them out, the rebel squad. I guess we
can call them. There's Marjorie Taylor Green obviously, Thomas Massey,
Lauren Bobert, and Nancy Mace.
Speaker 2: It's a very specific subset of the party, isn't it.
You have the sort of libertarian wing with Massy and
then the Magia firebrands with Green and Bober. Mace is
a bit of a maverick herself.
Speaker 1: And MTG is just baffled by this. You can hear
it in the clip. She says something like, we're like,
why this is the Epstein Files. This is the ultimate promise.
Speaker 2: She calls it the ultimate way to take it to
the deep State, And I think we need to pause
on that phrasing for a second. Take it to the
deep State?
Speaker 1: Yeah, what does that represent for her? For them?
Speaker 2: I think it represents the fulfillment of the entire mission
for her. The deep State isn't just a bureaucracy. It's
an active criminal enterprise. She describes it as a criminal
cabal of rich, powerful elites that control everything.
Speaker 1: And then she drops this line that I swear it
gave me chills. She says, and guess what come to
find out? They do?
Speaker 2: Come to find out they do.
Speaker 1: That is the sound of someone hitting a brick wall
at one hundred miles an hour. She went to Washington
to fight the cabal, thinking she could win, and she
is essentially admitting I found them and they are stronger
than I ever thought. They actually do control everything.
Speaker 2: Because they stopped her. They didn't just ignore this little
petition from four members. They actively worked to crush it.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that crushing. She describes a pressure campaign.
This wasn't just you know, people ghosting your text. This
was active, hostile suppression from the very top.
Speaker 2: She says. It was going on in the background for months,
constant pressure, pressure from the White House, pressure from the
Speaker's office, and.
Speaker 1: The message was consistent. She phrases it a little weirdly
in the video, right, she says the directive was do
not take your name off this discharge petition.
Speaker 2: Right. It's a bit of a slip of the tongue.
You can tell she's speaking off the cuff. The context
makes it perfectly clear. She means they were being pressured
to take their names off, to abandon the effort exactly.
Speaker 1: The message was stop this, kill this petition, back down now.
Speaker 2: And the tactics they allegedly used, I mean, this sounds
like something out of a spy thriller, not c SPAN.
Speaker 1: Let's start with Lauren Bobert. This is wild.
Speaker 2: The SCIF incident.
Speaker 1: Yes, MTG says Bobert was taken into an SCIF for
our listeners who might not know. Can you describe what
an SCIF is. It's not just a regular meeting room, no,
not at all.
Speaker 2: SCI is a sensitive compartmented information facility. It's a room
or a series of rooms, built to the most stringent
government standards to prevent any kind of espionage. We're talking
soundproof walls, electronic shielding, no cell phones, no smart watches.
You leave your entire digital life at the door.
Speaker 1: It's a bubble of total secrecy.
Speaker 2: It is designed for one thing, and one thing only,
discussing the nation's most dangerous secrets.
Speaker 1: You don't take someone into a SCI to tell them
their parking pass has expired.
Speaker 2: Now you take them there to show them satellite imagery
of a hidden nuclear site, or to discuss the names
of undercover agents in hostile territory. It's for life or
death national security level information.
Speaker 1: So MTG says Bobert is taken into this room regarding
the Epstein petition, and then MPTG says, I don't even
know what they said to her in there.
Speaker 2: And that mystery is just terrifying, isn't it. What could
they possibly have told her in a place like that.
The implication is that they use the entire weight and
veil of national security to intimidate her into silence.
Speaker 1: What could it be. Did they say, if you release this,
innocent people die. Did they say if you release this,
the global economy collapses? Or was it something more personal,
more threatening.
Speaker 2: We just don't know. But the fact that they would
use the apparatus of the intelligence state, the SCIF to
stop a petition about a convicted sex trafficker, I mean
that is profoundly suspicious.
Speaker 1: It suggests that the contents of those files, whatever they are,
are being treated as a matter of national security rather
than a matter of criminal justice, which are two very
different things.
Speaker 2: Very different. And it wasn't just Bobert. The pressure was widespread,
mentions Thomas Massey facing NonStop attacks. She says, Nancy Mace
was getting pressured directly from the White.
Speaker 1: House, so it shows a coordinated effort from the top down.
This wasn't just one rogue staffer getting nervous. This was,
according to her, the Speaker, the White House, the entire
party leadership mobilizing to protect these files from seeing the
light of day.
Speaker 2: Which brings us to the obvious multi billion dollar question,
why if the public narrative is that the bad guys.
You know, the Democrats, the Hollywood elites are the ones
in the files. Why would a Republican white house fight
so hard to hide them.
Speaker 1: That is the friction point, That is the contradiction that
breaks the entire model. It makes no sense unless the
model is.
Speaker 2: Wrong, and that leads us directly to the absolute climax
of MTG story. This is really the hard of it.
Segment two, the phone call, the confrontation. This is so cinematic.
I really want you to picture the scene as she
lays it out. It's September. NTG has been dealing with
all this pressure for months. Her phone rings and it's
the big man himself. It's Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And he is not calling to catch up or see
how she's doing.
Speaker 2: No, she describes him as being so mad. She says
he is yelling at her, chewing her out.
Speaker 1: Now, she does note that he started off being mad
about something else. Yeah, I think it was her support
for Rampaul Junior, some other legislative squabble. But the conversation pivots,
and it pivots hard.
Speaker 2: It steers right into the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: He is angry that she signed the petition. He is
angry that she is pushing for transparency on this issue.
Speaker 2: Now you have to think about MTG's mindset here. She is,
by her own admission, one of his biggest supporters. She
has defended him through impeachments, through indictments, through literally everything
in her mind. She believes, in her heart of hearts,
that he is the good guy in.
Speaker 1: This story, and she tries to reason with him on
the call. She recounts exactly what she said to him.
She says, mister President, they say you did nothing wrong.
This needs to come out.
Speaker 2: This is so crucial. She is operating on the belief
that the Aisles exonerate him. She even mentions in another
part of the clip that the attorney says President Trump
is the only one that helped us. She talks about
how he supposedly reported Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: So she thinks she is handing him a massive political win.
Speaker 2: She's like, boss, let me help you. Let's show the
whole world you're the hero they think you are.
Speaker 1: I'm on your side here.
Speaker 2: She thinks she's the loyal soldier bringing the ammunition to
win the final battle.
Speaker 1: And instead of him saying, you know what, Marjorie, you're right,
Let's do it. Let's blow this thing wide open. What
does he say? What is the one line that stops
everything dead in its tracks.
Speaker 2: He says, Marjorie, my friends will get hurt.
Speaker 1: Marjorie, my friends will get hurt.
Speaker 2: I just want to let that hang in the air
for a second. Let that sink in.
Speaker 1: It's such a simple sentence, just five words, but it
changes the entire universe of this story. It's like a
record scratch that stops the whole party.
Speaker 2: It completely destroys the national security excuse they might have
used in the scif gon. It destroys the we can't
interfere with an ongoing investigation excuse.
Speaker 1: All of the plausible deniability just evaporates with that one
word friends.
Speaker 2: It personalizes it. It admits that the people in those files,
the people who are associating with the most prolific sex
traffickers in modern history, are not targets to him. They
are not criminals to him. They are friends.
Speaker 1: And it implies that their safety, their reputation, their comfort
is more important to him than the truth coming out, And.
Speaker 2: Let's be clear, more important than the victims.
Speaker 1: Yes, let's not forget the victims in all of this.
There are real people who were abused, who have been
waiting for some semblance of justice for decades, and the
president's response, according to this account, is I don't want
my buddies to look bad.
Speaker 2: It's a stunning admission, and Brian Tyler Cohen in the video,
he jumps right on this. He points out that MTG
interprets this in a very specific, devastating way.
Speaker 1: She realizes in that moment that the administration isn't just
failing to keep a campaign promise.
Speaker 2: No, they are fighting for the express opposite.
Speaker 1: They're actively fighting to ensure the files are never.
Speaker 2: Released because if they're released, the friends get hurt.
Speaker 1: It flips the entire script. The promise was justice for
the forgotten man and woman. The reality she's implying is
protection for my powerful friends.
Speaker 2: And this is where we have to pivot to the analysis,
because this isn't just a story about a phone call.
It's a story about the entire nature of the political
movement itself. And this brings us to segment three, the
con Man argument.
Speaker 1: This is where Brian Tyler Cohen really starts to dissect
the situation, but before he even gets into the economics
and the policy, he addresses the credibility issue, because let's
be honest, Marjorie Taylor Green is an extremely polarizing figure.
A lot of people listening might be saying, well, she
says crazy stuff all the time. Why on earth should
I believe this?
Speaker 2: Which is a completely fair question, and Cohen addresses it
head on. He says point blank that he is no
fan of MTG. He makes that very very clear.
Speaker 1: He's not on our team, not at all.
Speaker 2: But he argues that in this specific instance, she is
the most credible witness you could possibly ask for.
Speaker 1: Why is that.
Speaker 2: Because of a legal concept called an admission against interest?
Speaker 1: Okay, break that down for us.
Speaker 2: Basically, the idea is that if someone tells a lie,
they usually do it to benefit themselves, to make themselves
look better, or to help their side, their team. You know,
if a fisherman lies, he says the fish was huge,
he doesn't say I didn't catch anything and I fell
in the lake.
Speaker 1: Right, you lie in your own favor exactly.
Speaker 2: Now, think about MTG's brand, Her entire brand is Trump
is the savior, her political career, her fundraising, her media profile.
It all depends on that narrative for her to come
out and tell a story that paints him as protecting
associates of a pedophile. That hurts her. It hurts her brand,
it undermines her entire political project.
Speaker 1: So she has no incentive to invent this story. In fact,
she has every incentive to keep it quiet.
Speaker 2: Precisely, Cohen says, she has no reason to lie here.
It goes against her own political self interest. If she
is saying this, he argues, it's likely because the cogn
of dissonance became too much for her to bear. She
was so shocked, so disillusioned by the truth that she
just blurted it out.
Speaker 1: It's the cry of a broken heart in a very
strange political way.
Speaker 2: It really is.
Speaker 1: So if we accept the premise for a moment, that
the phone call happened as she described and the friends
quote is real, Cohen then uses that as a key
to unlock and dismantle the entire populist image of Trump.
Speaker 2: He calls it the Trump con and he says that
Trump costplays as a populist.
Speaker 1: Cost plays as a populist. That is such a sticky phrase,
isn't it. It just brings up this perfect image of
a billionaire putting on a hard hat for a photo
op and then wiping his hands with a silk handkerchief
to second the cameras.
Speaker 2: Are off, and Cohen's argument is that Trump pretends to
be a champion for the working class, but his actual
record and actions prove that, in Cohen's words, he doesn't
give a flying a f about the working class.
Speaker 1: And he doesn't just throw out insults. He brings the receipts.
The source video lists a whole string of economic policies
to back this up. Because Cohen's core point is this,
this protection of Epstein's friends isn't an anomaly. It's perfectly
consistent with everything else the administration did.
Speaker 2: Right, It's a pattern. So let's look at the data
he presents in the video. He starts with the big one,
the tax.
Speaker 1: Cuts, the signature legislative achievement of the administration.
Speaker 2: And who did they benefit, massive permanent tax cuts for
corporations and the ultra wealthy. Cohen basically argues, this is
the friends getting paid. This is the kickback.
Speaker 1: Then he pivots to the cuts that hurt the very
base that supports him. He mentions the cuts to.
Speaker 2: Medicaid affecting seventeen million low income Americans. Just think about that, number.
For a second, seventeen million people, that's more than the
population of many European countries, all potentially losing access to
healthcare support.
Speaker 1: He brings up cuts to the Affordable Care Act subsidies.
Speaker 2: Impacting twenty four million people, again huge numbers, and food assistants.
Speaker 1: This one is brutal. He mentions, it proposed one hundred
and eighty six billion dollars cut to food assistance programs.
Speaker 2: That is visceral, isn't it. That is literally taking food
off the table for struggling families, for children, for the elderly.
Speaker 1: And then there's the trade war. We were all told
it would bring jobs back, that it would punish China,
but Cohen argues it just sent costs surging for everyday Americans. Food, clothing, housing, materials,
everything got more expensive for the regular guy.
Speaker 2: And he points out that despite all the political attacks
on the current economy, when you look at the actual
data on inflation and wages, he argues, the previous administration
was effectively waging a war against the working class.
Speaker 1: So Cohen connects all these dots. He says, look, if
his entire economic policy is take from the poor and
give to the rich, why are you so surprised that
his legal policy regarding Epstein is protect the rich at
the expense of justice.
Speaker 2: It's a consistent philosophy. It's class solidarity. The rich protect
the rich. It's not about left versus right. It's about
up versus down.
Speaker 1: Protection for the pals exactly.
Speaker 2: Cohen puts it very bluntly. He says, those are his friends.
They are his pals. They funded his campaign, they're in
his tax bracket.
Speaker 1: And he asks this rhetorical question, you think he's going
to give those people up so that he can pander
to the suckers who believed his populist stick.
Speaker 2: It's a really harsh assessment. He calls the voters suckers
for believing the Khan. But if you look at the
actions versus the words as presented in the source, the
argument holds a certain kind of cold logic.
Speaker 1: It's the difference between the sales pitch and the actual product,
isn't it. The sales pitch is I am your voice.
The product, he argues, is I am their shield. So
let's talk about those pals. Let's get more specific. Segment four,
The friends and the cover up. Who are we actually
talking about here?
Speaker 2: The source video does drop a few names, and we
have to be very careful here. We're reporting what the
source material says. These are people mentioned in the context
of the files or being in Epstein's social circle.
Speaker 1: Right, and these are not small names. These are titans
of industry and finance.
Speaker 2: He mentions Howard Lutnik, Kevin Worsh, a doctor Roz and the.
Speaker 1: Really big one, the one that makes everyone sit up
and pay attention, Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: Yes, the source specifically mentions Musk in the context of
launching at his island and planning vacations.
Speaker 1: Now, this is so significant because of where these people,
especially Musk, sit in the current power structure. Elon Musk
isn't just the CEO of a guard company anymore. He
is deeply, deeply integrated into the political sphere. He owns
a major social media platform, he's.
Speaker 2: A major donor, a major cultural voice. He has immense power.
Speaker 1: So if the Epstein files contain potentially damaging information about
someone like Elon Musk, and again this is the fear
expressed in the source, then protecting Musk isn't just about friendship.
It becomes about political survival.
Speaker 2: It's about leverage.
Speaker 1: Exactly. If you burn your biggest ally, your biggest megaphone,
your biggest funder. You lose a massive amount of power.
Speaker 2: It creates this kind of dark web of mutual assured destruction.
I know your secrets, you know my. We all protect
each other or we all go down together.
Speaker 1: It's the mafia code, oh meerta, the code of silence.
Speaker 2: And to enforce that code you need a mechanism. You
can't just wish the files a way. You need the
institutional power of the government, specifically the Department of Justice,
to bury them.
Speaker 1: This is where Cohen brings up the figure of Pam Bondi.
Speaker 2: The potential future Attorney General.
Speaker 1: Cohen's theory, and this is a really critical part of
his analysis, is that she would not be chosen for
her legal prowess or her independence.
Speaker 2: No, he calls her an arm of Trump, a political
operative in the AG's office.
Speaker 1: He says her specific job, her mandate would not be
to expose the co conspirators in the Epstein case. It
would be to protect them.
Speaker 2: And why because, as Cohen argues, and this is the
core of his theory, Trump himself is implicated in the files.
Speaker 1: That is the fundamental argument. If the leader himself is
in the files. Then the leader can never ever allow
the files to be released. It's pure self preservation.
Speaker 2: So the Attorney General becomes the goalkeeper. Her job is
to block any in every shot that comes at the net,
to shut down investigations, to slow walks of poenas to
classified documents.
Speaker 1: Coen defines this as a government wide cover up. He
uses a very powerful and disturbing phrase here. He says,
it's people in power working to protect the perpetrators while
leaving the victims twisting in the wind.
Speaker 2: Twisting in the wind. That image really stuck with me
because while we sit here talking about billionaires and SCIFs
and discharge petitions, the reality is that there are human beings,
women who were girls at the time, who were trafficked,
who were abused, and.
Speaker 1: They are watching the most powerful government on the face
of the earth allegedly work overtime to make sure their
abusers are never named, never face justice.
Speaker 2: It is a profound moral failure. It sends the clearest
possible message that if you have enough money and enough power,
the law simply does not apply to you.
Speaker 1: It's infuriating to even think about, and it brings up
the deep cynicism of the whole political strategy, which leads
us to segment five, the hypocrisy of the platform.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Cohen brooks down what he calls the Magga gop
strategy into a predictable cycle, and once he lays it out,
you start to see it everywhere.
Speaker 1: Take a four step process.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Step one, talk endlessly about the issue.
Speaker 2: Right, use the outrage. Scream about Epstein, scream about the
deep state. It works. It gets people fired up, It
gets clicks, donations, engagement, it builds an audience.
Speaker 1: Step two, make money off it. You build the brand,
You sell the hats, you sell the merch.
Speaker 2: Step three, get elected. You ride that wave of righteous
anger all the way into office.
Speaker 1: And then step four the great betrayal. Once you actually
have the power to do something about it, you abandon
the issue entirely.
Speaker 2: Or worse, you actively suppress it blind deference to the criminals.
That is the exact phrase Cohen uses.
Speaker 1: He says, say whatever you have to say to get elected,
and the minute you have power, abandon them.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate political bait and switch. You campaign as
the sheriff coming to clean up the town, and then
you become the ghetto for the bank.
Speaker 1: Robbers that is the perfect analogy. The sheriff becomes the
getaway driver.
Speaker 2: And what is so fascinating to me is that MTG
in these clips seems to be realizing this in real time.
She's not just talking about theory. She talks about seeing
the actual evidence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a key detail she let slip. She
says she has read things on an FBI.
Speaker 2: Form, She has physically seen it. And she asks this question,
and you can just hear the frustration in her voice.
She says, how can we read these things with our
own eyes and read them on an FBI form? But
yet the FBI and the Department of Justice in the administration,
and even the President himself is unwilling to take it seriously.
Speaker 1: She is holding the smoking gun in her hand. She
has seen the paper with the official letterhead, and the
entire government is gaslighting her. They're telling her, no, you
didn't see what you saw. That doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: She then asks the central moral question, why is the
FBI protecting the world's foremost predator. She calls him the
largest scale pedoist six in human history. It's an incredible claim.
Speaker 1: Her conclusion, after all this, it's not incompetence, it's not
some bureaucratic snaffoo.
Speaker 2: Now, her conclusion is chillingly simple. She says, it's simple
protection of who's on that list.
Speaker 1: Who is on that list.
Speaker 2: People who are too powerful to jail friends.
Speaker 1: It implies that we are living in a country with
two justice systems. There's one for you and me. If
we commit a crime, we go to jail instantly.
Speaker 2: The system is very efficient for us.
Speaker 1: But if you are a friend, if you are on
that list, you get the President screaming at congresswomen to
protect you. You get the Attorney General running interference, you
get the whole system working to keep your name a secret.
Speaker 2: It is a chilling realization for anyone to have, especially
for someone who's so deeply believed in the system's leader.
Speaker 1: And finally, there's this kind of meta layer to this
whole story. This is segment six the media Landscape, because
this isn't just about the files anymore. It's about how
we even get to hear about the files in the
first place.
Speaker 2: Right towards the end of the video, Cohen pivots. He
zooms out and talks about the medium itself. He talks
about YouTube, about social media.
Speaker 1: He talks about the threat to independent media. He warns
that a future administration can, in his words, lean on
these social media platforms to control the narrative.
Speaker 2: And this connects right back to the friends. If the
people who own the social media platforms, which are basically
the town squares of the twenty first century, are the
same people who are friends with the administration.
Speaker 1: And the fix is in, the game is rigged.
Speaker 2: Cohen argues that these tech billionaires are willing, even eager
to cater to a friendly administration to suppress critical voices.
Speaker 1: I mean, if Elon Musk owns the platform and Elon
Musk is a friend who allegedly needs protection, well you
can do the math on what happens to posts and
videos that are critical of the administration or that talk
about the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: They get downranked, they get shadow banded, their reach is throttled.
They just sort of disappear from the conversation.
Speaker 1: Cohen explicitly says that his channel's longevity is in the
hands of a few tech billionaires. It's a stark admission.
He encourages people to sign up for his newsletter to
establish direct connections that can't be censored by an algorithm.
Speaker 2: He is basically preparing for information war. He knows that
the only way to bypass the censorship of the powerful
friends is to go direct to the people.
Speaker 1: It's a really sobering thought that the deep state isn't
just some shadowy guys in a basement somewhere. It's the
guys running the servers. It's the guys writing the algorithms
that decide what you see every day.
Speaker 2: And according to this theory, they are all at the
same dinner parties, protecting each other's interests.
Speaker 1: So here we are. We've unspooled this entire thread.
Speaker 2: It's a tangled, ugly mess, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It really is. We started with a simple discharge petition
signed by four rebels. We went through a secret meeting
in an scif where Lauren Bobert was allegedly intimidated. We
listened in on a screaming phone call where the President
of the United States shouted, my friends will get hurt.
Speaker 2: We analyze the economic data presented by the source that
sit just a con man strategy of fake populism. We
looked at the names of some of those specific friends
musk Lutnik worsh and.
Speaker 1: We ended with realization that the entire drain the swamp
narrative might just be a story, a very effective story
told to get votes, while the swamp creatures throw a
party in the back room, protected by the very man
who promised to get rid of them.
Speaker 2: It is a profoundly dark narrative. But what makes this
specific thread so compelling, so unique, is that this story
is being told not just by the critics on the outside,
but by the true believers on the inside.
Speaker 1: The call is coming from inside the house literally.
Speaker 2: In this telling, MTG is the one blowing the whistle,
whether she intended to or not.
Speaker 1: And that leads us to our final provocative thought for you,
our listeners.
Speaker 2: This is the big takeaway, the thing to really chew
on after all of this.
Speaker 1: If the source is correct, If this account is true,
and even the most loyal brand ambassadors like MTG are
admitting that the swamp is being actively protected from the
very top down, what does that mean for the concept
of political loyalty?
Speaker 2: At what point does the truth outweigh the team.
Speaker 1: At what point do you stop cheering for the jersey
and start looking at the player wearing it. At what
point do you realize that the person you are fighting
for might actually be fighting against your interests.
Speaker 2: And if the friends are more important than the people,
are you really part of a political movement or are
you just serving as a human shield for someone else's privilege.
Speaker 1: That is the question, it really is. So it's called
to action time. We want to hear from you, and
we're serious about this is a heavy, complicated topic and
I know people have very strong feelings about it.
Speaker 2: So what is your stand on this? Do you believe,
like the source argues, that political figures just use these
scandals for votes and headlines with no real intention of
ever solving them.
Speaker 1: Is it all just political theater or do you think
there's another layer to this protection of friends? Do you
think MPG is misunderstanding the situation or is this the
smoking gun she presents it as.
Speaker 2: Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Get this conversation going because it's an important.
Speaker 1: One, absolutely, because at the end of the day, the
only way to get to the truth is to keep
pulling the strength.
Speaker 2: Couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us on thrilling Threads. We'll see you
next time.
Speaker 2: Take care,