Speaker 1: Picture this. You've got your morning coffee, right, You're just
you're scrolling through your news feed, trying to get a
handle on the day. We all do exactly. And then
you see it. It's a breaking news alert. But it's
not just a headline, it's a photograph, right, And your
brain takes a second to process it, because, well, it
looks like something straight out of a tabloid. But the
face is undeniable. You're looking at a high ranking government official.
We're talking about the Commerce Secretary of the United States,
Howard Lutnik.
Speaker 2: And you know he's not sitting in a boardroom, he's
not at some ribbon cutting ceremony.
Speaker 1: No, he's on a boat. He's wearing this blue button
down shirt, wind in his hair. But the location is
what stops you cold. The background is off the coast
of Little Saint James Jeffrey Epstein's Island.
Speaker 2: The one place on Earth that has basically become shorthand
for the absolute worst crimes imaginable, the literal epicenter of
a global trafficking ring.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you do what any rational skeptical person does.
You think, Okay, is this real or is this some
aid fake? You want to verify it. So you go
to the source. You rush over to the Department of
Justice website, the official portal for the Epstein Transparency Act, right.
Speaker 2: The database the government set up specifically to show the
public these documents exactly.
Speaker 1: So you type in Lutnek, you hit enter, and what
happens something avoid No results found. So you think maybe
I spell it wrong. You try Epstein, the man the
act is literally named after No results found. You try Maxwell,
No results found.
Speaker 2: The search bar is completely dead.
Speaker 1: It's not just that the photo isn't there, the entire
mechanism to find it has flatlined at the exact moment
the public tries to look.
Speaker 2: And that brings us to the terrifying question we have
to grapple with today. Is this just a glitch, you know,
a government server crashing under the weight of web traffic,
or are we witnessing the digital fingerprint of a massive,
real time cover up orchestrated by the highest levels of government.
Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling Threads. I'm your host, and I have
to say, looking through the research for this one, my
heart is still racing a little bit. It feels really heavy.
Speaker 2: It is heavy, and you're completely right to feel that adrenaline,
because what we're pulling on today isn't just a thread
about a scandal or even a salacious photo. It's a
thread about the machinery of information control. Yeah, it's about
how histor gets rewritten or deleted right in front of
our eyes.
Speaker 1: It honestly feels a bit dystopian. Now, to be clear
with everyone listening, we are basing this discussion on the
factual reporting and the transcript from a really explosive source,
specifically the Midas Touch investigation title Trump shuts down Epstein
website as pictures surface. We're going to walk through every
single detail they laid out, but we're going to slow
it down and really unpack the implications. We're not taking
political sides here. We are just looking at the evidence
presented in that source material.
Speaker 2: And we really have to be precise here because we're
dealing with serious allegations, legal documents, digital forensics, and frankly,
some very disturbing content regarding who was actually on that boat.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, So here's our roadmap for this session. We are
going to look at five specific threats. First, the smoking
gun photo itself, Howard Lutnik on the island. We need
to look at it closely. Second, that DOJ website blackout.
I mentioned the glitch that wasn't. Third, we're going to
unravel Lutnick's previous testimony to Congress.
Speaker 2: Right, specifically that story he told about being disgusted by Epstein.
Speaker 1: Yeah, spoiler alert, the photo tells a very very different story. Then. Fourth,
we're going to look at something very bureaucratic but incredibly dangerous,
which is the suppression of the FBI threeh two reports.
If you don't know what a three O two is,
stick around because that is where the real secrets are buried,
the raw witness data exactly. And finally, we'll touch on
the bizarre tales of two recent depositions, Les Wexner's terrifying
death threat and Hillary Clinton's questions about of all things UFOs.
Speaker 2: It's a lot. It's really dense, it is.
Speaker 1: But we're going to unpack it all. Let's start with
the visual that sparked the panic in the first place.
Segment one.
Speaker 2: The photo, right, because context is everything here. People here
photo on a boat, and they might think of a
paparazzi shot taken from a mile away, you know, blurry, grainy, ambiguous.
Speaker 1: Yeah, describe what we are actually looking at here because
in the minastupped source was very specific. I want you,
the listener, to be able to see this image perfectly
in your mind.
Speaker 2: So in this photograph you have a group of people
on the deck of a boat. The setting is crystal clear.
In background, you can see a flagpole, in specific terrain.
Speaker 1: Features like rocks, vegetation lines.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and satellite imagery confirms this matches the coast of
Little Saint James Epstein's private island perfectly. There is absolutely
no ambiguity about where this is taking place.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the wear is established, geography doesn't lie. But
who is on the boat?
Speaker 2: Front and center? You have Howard Lutnik. He's wearing a blee,
buttoned down shirt, sleeves rolled up maybe, and the source
makes a very specific point to describe his demeanor. This
is crucial.
Speaker 1: Yeah, how does he look.
Speaker 2: He doesn't look like a hostage, he doesn't look uncomfortable,
he doesn't look like someone who is realizing he's in
a bad situation. According to the source, he looks like
he is having the time of his life. He is smiling,
he's relaxed.
Speaker 1: And who is he with? Because you are judged by
the company you keep, especially in place like that.
Speaker 2: Well, obviously Jeffrey Epstein is there, but there's also a
man identified as Michael Laerman. But perhaps most disturbingly, and
this is the part that really makes your stomach turn
given the context, there's a group of young people. The
source identifies them as likely being Lutnik's own children.
Speaker 1: Wait, his kids, Yes, they.
Speaker 2: Would have been around sixteen years old at the time.
Speaker 1: That is a detail that just stops you cold, bringing
your teenage kids to Epstein's island. It feels incredibly normal
in the photo, which is what makes it so creepy.
It looks like a standard family vacation.
Speaker 2: And that normalization is key to understanding the relationship, which
we will get too later. But first we need to
address the skepticism. I know there are listeners right now thinking, well,
hold on, photos can be faked. We live in a
digital age. Is this ai? Is this a deep fake? Right?
Speaker 1: It's a completely fair question. We see fake images of
politicians literally every day. How do we verify this?
Speaker 2: The source points to a few layers of verification that
make this very very difficult to dismith as a fake. First,
there's a service called jmail Jmail.
Speaker 1: I haven't heard of that one. Is that like Gmail,
not quite.
Speaker 2: Jmail is a specialized legal technology service. Essentially, during the
discovery phase of the Steam trials, they ingested all of
the raw files millions of emails, photos, documents and preserve
them in a format that looks like an email inbox.
Speaker 1: Okay, so a massive data dump, right.
Speaker 2: The goal is to preserve the metadata and the structure
of the data so lawyers can search it efficiently. This
photo was part of that official ingestion.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't just found on a random hard drive
or leaked directly to a tabloid. It was in the
official pile process by legal teams exactly.
Speaker 2: And because it was processed, it has a Baates number.
Speaker 1: Okay, explain that for people who aren't lawyers. We hear
Baits stamp or Baits number a lot in these legal dramas.
But what does it actually do.
Speaker 2: Think of a Bates number as a digital fingerprint or
a serial number for a piece of paper. When lawyers
exchange millions of documents during a lawsuit, every single page
gets a unique alphanumeric code stamped on it, usually right
in the corner.
Speaker 1: To keep track of it all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, It ensures that nothing gets lost and more importantly,
nothing gets added later. If you have a gap in
the sequential numbers, you know exactly what is missing. This
photo is specifically stamped EFTA zero one two three zero
six three nine PDF.
Speaker 1: EFTA zero one two three zero six three nine. So
that number is the chain of custody precisely.
Speaker 2: It proves this image existed in the legal discovery files
before it suddenly disappeared from the website. You can't just
fake a Bate's number that perfectly corresponds to a gap
in the official record without leaving a massive digital trace.
It anchors the photo in reality.
Speaker 1: That's really compelling. So you have the chain of customer.
But what about the face itself.
Speaker 2: The source mentions that Jmail used AWS Amazon Web Services
facial recognition.
Speaker 1: Software, which is heavy duty.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this isn't a Snapchat filter. This is an off
the shelf, industrial grade API used by security companies and
governments all over the world. It analyzed the face in
the blue shirt and confirmed it is Howard Lutnik with
ninety nine percent certainty.
Speaker 1: Ninety nine percent certainty in the world of digital forensics,
that is effectively a match. But It isn't just the
photo right because of photo as a moment in time,
but usually a trip like this has a massive paper trail, logistics, flights.
Speaker 2: Yes, and that is the final nail in the coffin
for the fake theory. The source cites specific emails uncovered
in the Epstein files. We have an exact date December
twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: Okay, December twenty twelve, everyone keep that year in mind,
twenty twelve.
Speaker 2: In the emails, Lutnik is coordinating directly with Epstein. He writes, quote,
we are landing in Saint Thomas early Saturday afternoon and
planning to head over to Saint Barts on Monday at
some point. Then he asks a question that implies he
needs very granular specifics. He says, where are you located?
What's the exact location for my captain?
Speaker 1: What's the exact location for my captain? That implies he's
on a private vessel. That is a level of familiarity
and logistics. That implies a heavily planned, coordinated visit, not
just to stumble upon.
Speaker 2: And he explicitly mentions the guest list in the email,
which matches the photo perfectly. He says, I have another
couple Michael and Marcy Lherman. Remember Michael Lherman was identified
in the photo, and he adds each of us has
four children, two sixteen's, two fourteens of thirteen to twelve
and eleven, and a seven year old.
Speaker 1: Wow, so let's stack this up. The photo shows Lutnik, Epstein,
Lherman and a group of teens. The email lists Lutnik,
Lherman and their teens. The geography matches the island, the
facial recognition matches the face. The Bates number proves the
document's authenticity. It is open and shut.
Speaker 2: As far as evidence goes, it is completely overwhelming. If
this were a criminal trial, that is enough to legally
place him at the scene.
Speaker 1: So the evidence is rock solid. But here is where
the story show from just being about a scandalous photo
to something much much darker. Let's talk about the reaction,
because if this was just an embarrassing photo, you'd expect
a denial or maybe a PR team spinning it, or
even just silence. Right, but that's not what happened. Let's
move to segment two. The glitch.
Speaker 2: The glitch the timing here is what makes it so
incredibly suspicious.
Speaker 1: Right, So this news starts to bubble up. People are
whispering on social media, hey have you seen the Lutnik photo,
And naturally, citizen journalists and curious voters want to verify
it for themselves, so they go to the DOJ website.
The Epstein Transparency Act portal walk us through exactly what
happened to the user experience.
Speaker 2: According to the source reporting, users started realizing that searches
for Lutnik returned no results. Found now, in a database
of this immense size involving these specific people, that is
statistically impossible if the system is actually working. Yeah, but
it wasn't just him. They searched Epstein no results.
Speaker 1: Wait on the Epstein Transparency website.
Speaker 2: Yes, they searched Trump, no results. They searched Maxwell no results.
Speaker 1: That is literally like going to Wikipedia searching for World
War Two and getting a blank page. It's the primary
function of the.
Speaker 2: Site, effectively, Yes, the search function was deliberately disabled. It
appears to have been shut down specifically during the exact
window when this photo was going viral online. But here
is the nuance we need to grasp. Government websites do crash.
They are old, they are clunky. If a million people
click a link at once. A server can melt down.
Speaker 1: Right, the hug of death. We see it all the
time with concert ticket sales or massive news drops exactly.
Speaker 2: But usually when a server crashes from traffic, the whole
site goes down. You get a four or four hour
page or the browser times out. What happened here was
fundamentally different. The site itself was up, the interface was
loading fine, but the database queries were returning zeros. That
suggests someone turned off the connection to the data, not
that the server hardware failed.
Speaker 1: That is a crucial distinction. And they didn't just break
the search bar right, because smart people, researchers, data journalists,
they know you can browse sequentially. If you know the
BAITS numbers, you can just click nex, next, nest.
Speaker 2: And that is the absolute smoking gun of the cover up.
According to the source, users tried to find that specific
BAITS number we mentioned e FTU zero one two three,
zero six three nine when they looked for it sequentially,
just scrolling through the files manually, it was completely gone.
The source claims the photo was manually removed from the browsing.
Speaker 1: Order, so someone had to go in there. Someone with
high level admin access had to log in locate that
specific file and unpublish it or delete it. This wasn't
an accident, This was digital surgery.
Speaker 2: That is the core allegation. The intent seems to be
pure gaslighting. If you take the photo off the official
government website, then when someone shares it on Twitter or Facebook,
the skeptics can say, oh, that's a fake, it's not
in the official archive. You're spreading disinformation. They wanted to
create a vacuum of verification.
Speaker 1: They wanted to make us doubt our own eyes. Who
are you going to believe the Department of Justice or
some Twitter account? But it totally backfired, didn't it spectacularly?
Speaker 2: This is the classic straysand effect in action.
Speaker 1: I love that term. Explain it for us, just so
everyone listening is on the exact same page.
Speaker 2: It's named after Barber streisand years ago she tried to
sue a photographer to remove an aerial photo of her
house from a public collection of coastline pictures. Before the lawsuit,
basically nobody had seen the photo. It was completely obscure.
After the lawsuit, millions of people looked at it, specifically
because she tried to hide it by deleting this photo
of Lutnik the DOJ, and the source points the finger
directly at Pam Bondi's leadership. Here essentially confirmed its authenticity.
You don't delete a fake photo, you ignore it. You
only delete something if it is deeply damaging and entirely real.
Speaker 1: That is such a good point. If it was a fake,
the DOJ could just issue a simple press release. This
image circulating is an AI fabrication. Here is the digital proof.
By scrubbing the servers. They basically stamped true on it
in met.
Speaker 2: Read letters and they signaled absolute panic. You only pull
the plug on the server if you are terrified of
what the public is.
Speaker 1: Finding, which begs the question why are they so terrified?
Why is this one photo of the Commerce secretary worth
crashing a DOJ website for? And I think the answer
lies in the web of lies Lutnik has been spinning
for years. If this photo comes out, it doesn't just
look bad politically, it proves he lied to Congress. Let's
move to segment three.
Speaker 2: This is where the character study really comes into play.
Howard Lutnek has been very very vocal about his relationship
or lack thereof, with Jeffrey Epstein. He hasn't been shy
about discussing it right.
Speaker 1: He gave this big interview to Miranda Devine at the
New York Post. He has testified to Congress, and the
story has always been exactly the same. It's a very specific,
rehearsed narrative. I met him once once.
Speaker 2: That was the central claim. He said. He met Epstein
one time in two thousand and five. They were neighbors
in New York. Epstein invited him.
Speaker 1: Over, and Lutnik tells this incredibly vivid story to sell
it to the public. He says he walked into Epstein's house,
saw a massage table sitting in the middle of the
room and was just disgusted. He claims he walked out,
told his wife that man is gross, and that he
never saw him again.
Speaker 2: He was very specific about the boundaries. He claimed zero
professional relationship, zero philanthropic relationship, and zero social relationship. He
essentially painted himself as the moral crusader who spotted the
predator immediately and walked away.
Speaker 1: I was disgusted that man is gross, never saw him again.
Speaker 2: That's two thousand and five, and now we have a
verified photo from twenty.
Speaker 1: Twelve, seven years later, seven years.
Speaker 2: After he was supposedly deeply disgusted. He is on a
boat in the Caribbean, wearing a blue button down, smiling
with his teenage children, visiting the very man he claimed
to hate.
Speaker 1: You don't take your kids to visit a man you
find disgusting, You just don't. That is the part that
completely breaks the logic for me. If you think a
guy is a predator or even just gross, you keep
your family one thousand miles away. You don't coordinate boat
logistics and vacation plans.
Speaker 2: It completely unravels his sworn testimony. But the Mitas Touch
reporting shows it gets much deeper than just the trip.
The source highlights that their lives were much more intertwined
than just a casual visit. There were neighbors in a
very literal structural sense.
Speaker 1: How close are we actually talking?
Speaker 2: Ludnik lived at eleven East seventy first Street, Epstein lived
at nine to East seventy first Street.
Speaker 1: Wait nine and eleven. They literally shared a.
Speaker 2: Wall effectively, Yes, and interestingly, both of those properties were
originally owned by Les Wexner, the billionaire behind a Victoria's Secret,
So they are living side by side in this Wexner
owned complex. They are in the exact same social and
geographical ecosystem.
Speaker 1: And the source mentions business ties too. It wasn't just
neighborly chats over the fence about the hedges.
Speaker 2: Correct. The emails revealed detailed discussions about a partnership in
a company called adfin starting around twenty fourteen. Again way
way after the two thousand and five discuss date. They
were even strategizing together about suing a nearby museum because
it was going to block the sunlight to their property.
Speaker 1: That is so petty and so intimate. Let's sue the
museum together. That is buddy Buddy's stuff. That implies a
shared financial interest and a deeply shared strategy.
Speaker 2: And Epstein gave Lutnik a fifty thousand dollars gift.
Speaker 1: Whoa fifty grand just cash or a check?
Speaker 2: A fifty thousand dollars gift. Now, I don't know about you,
but I don't accept fifty thousand dollars gifts from people
I find grows and supposedly haven't seen in a decade.
Speaker 1: You definitely don't. That is a transaction or a bribe
or a very very expensive thank you. You do not
give fifty grand to a casual acquaintance.
Speaker 2: Tedlu the congressman weighing heavily on this. He pointed out
that Lutnik likely committed pertury he lied under oath to
Congress during his confirmation hearings or previous testimonies about the
actual nature of his relationship. And when you look at
the totality of it, the business deals, the lawsuits, the
cash gifts, the island vacations with the kids, the disgusted
narrative isn't just a white lie. Is a highly calculated
fabrication designed to protect his political career and.
Speaker 1: To detect himself from being associated with the horrific crimes
that happened on that island. I mean bringing your kids there.
That is the part I simply cannot get over. We
know now what was happening on Little Saint James. It
was a trafficking hub, and he is treating it like
a Sambals resort.
Speaker 2: It speaks to a level of comfort with Epstein's world
that is deeply unsettling. It suggests that whatever he saw
in two thousand and five didn't disgust him enough to
actually stay away.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we have the photo, the digital cover up,
and the perjury but the source argues this goes way
beyond Lutnik. This is an institutional issue. We need to
talk about the memo. This is segment four.
Speaker 2: This is probably the most legally significant part of the
entire report. The source references a specific memorandum dated January fourth,
twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: January four, twenty twenty six, So this is incredibly recent.
This is current administration policy.
Speaker 2: Right, and it comes directly from Todd Blanche.
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche, why does that name ring a bell for people?
Speaker 2: He was Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney. He represented him
in his high profile trials in New York and Florida.
Now he is in a high ranking position within the
administration sending official directives to FBI and DOJ agents.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the president's former personal defense lawyer is now
telling the FBI what to do with the Epstein files.
That seems like a massive conflict of interest. To put
it mildly, what did the memo actually say?
Speaker 2: The instruction was explicit flag and withhold all FBI three
H two reports.
Speaker 1: Let's unpack that jargon. I hear three O two in
true crime shows all the time, but what is it
actually in practice in.
Speaker 2: Federal law enforcement. An FD three two form is the
official permanent record of an interview. When an FBI agent
sits down with a witness, a survivor, a pilot, or
a criminal associate, they don't just take loose, sticky notes.
They write a formal, highly detailed, narrative summary of everything
that was said. The three to two is the raw
fact pattern of an investigation. It is the definitive who
said what?
Speaker 1: So these are the interviews with the victims. These are
the stories of the people who saw exactly what happened.
These are the first hand accounts of the abuse exactly.
Speaker 2: The source claims. There are over ninety of these specific reports,
and the memo orders them to be hidden from the public.
Speaker 1: Ninety reports. That is ninety voices being silenced. Why what
is the legal justification for that? They can't just say
we don't want you to see this.
Speaker 2: This is where it gets incredibly legally acrobatic. The memo
instructs agents to claim attorney client privilege on communications between
Jeffrey Epstein and Gislaine Maxwell.
Speaker 1: Wait wait stop. Epstein and Maxwell were co conspirators. They
are partners in an international crime ring. They weren't each
other's lawyers. How on earth can they have attorney client privilege.
Speaker 2: They can't not In any standard legal universe. Privilege only
applies between a client and their actual retained legal council.
But the source theorizes that the DOJ is using this
as a massive loophole. The theory is that Epstein and
Maxwell were discussing Donald Trump in these specific communications.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see so, because they were talking about Trump
and Trump is now the president.
Speaker 2: The DOJ is claiming privilege to protect the subject of
the conversation, treating the conversation as if it legally belongs
to the president. The expert source calls this patently unlawful.
You absolutely cannot claim privilege over two criminals talking to
each other just because they happened to mention your name.
Speaker 1: That is wild. It is like if two bank robbers
were talking about me and I tried to seal their
criminal court records because I don't want people to know
they knew my name.
Speaker 2: It creates a zone of absolute immunity where there should
be none at all. And it connects directly to the
fifty three missing pages uncovered by MPR.
Speaker 1: Right I saw that headline floating around NPR found that
there were massive page gaps in the official release, and.
Speaker 2: Those pages allegedly relate specifically to allegations involving Donald Trump.
Sarah Matthews, the former deputy Press secretary who worked for Trump,
mind you, was very blunt about this. She called it
a cover up coming from the top.
Speaker 1: When you have the former press secretary saying it is
a cover up that holds serious weight, She's not a
political outsider. She noted that hiding these files contradicts the
whole t transparency branding of the administration. They call it
the Epstein Transparency Act, but it sounds a lot more
like the Epstein Opaque Acts.
Speaker 2: Transparency for thee but not for me. That seems to
be the guiding operating principle here.
Speaker 1: It is terrifying to think that the Department of Justice
is being utilized as a personal defense firm. But speaking
of terrifying, we need to talk about the depositions. This
is segment five.
Speaker 2: This is where the story shifts from bureaucratit cover ups
to something that feels straight out of a mob movie.
Speaker 1: Les Wexner, the billionaire, the man who owned those townhouses
we talked about earlier, the man behind the limited victorious secret.
He was deposed recently.
Speaker 2: Yes, and his testimony was completely explosive. He admitted on
the record to giving Epstein one billion dollar.
Speaker 1: One billion with a B. That is an insane, almost
unfathomable amount of.
Speaker 2: Money, and he claims he was conned. He says he
didn't know why he hired Epstein as his financial advisor.
He just gave him the money.
Speaker 1: Which is incredibly hard to swallow. You don't accidentally give
a con man a billion dollars unless he has something
monumental on you, or unless you are getting something very
specific in return.
Speaker 2: Precisely, but the Midas Touch source highlights a specific moment
in the deposition that is absolutely chilling. Wexner started talking
about the Rothschild banking family and their deep connections to Epstein.
He started to pull on a thread about where the
money actually went and what happened. Wexner's lawyer physically interrupted him,
and according to the source, the lawyer said, quote, if
you keep on speaking, I'm going to thing kill you.
Excuse me, I'm going to thing kill you.
Speaker 1: In a congressional deposition with the stenographer present in the room.
Speaker 2: That is the report. It sounds of pure fiction. It
sounds like a scene from The Sopranos, But this is
the actual level of tension and threat surrounding these witnesses.
If a billionaire, literally one of the richest most powerful
men in the world, is being threatened with death by
his own lawyer for speaking too much, imagine the pressure
on the actual survivor imagine the pressure on the people
who don't have a billion dollars to protect themselves.
Speaker 1: That is bone chilling. I'm going to kill you.
Speaker 2: It tells you that there are secrets here that people
are willing to commit actual violence to protect. It's not
just about reputation management anymore. It's about survival.
Speaker 1: And then you contrast that life or death intensity with
the deposition of Hillary Clinton, which happened right around the
same time.
Speaker 2: Oh, this is a circus act.
Speaker 1: It really was. While Wexner is being threatened with death,
Hillary Clinton is being asked about.
Speaker 2: UFOs, UFOs and Pizzagate. Yes, the source details at the
questioning completely steered away from any substantive issues and went
straight into internet conspiracy theories. They asked her about aliens,
They asked her about Pizzagate, the thoroughly debunked theory about
a pizza parlor basement in DC.
Speaker 1: It is such a stark, bizarre contrast. On one side
you have a billion dollar money trail and literal death threats.
On the other side you have questions about little green men.
Speaker 2: It reveals the entire strategy with Clinton wasn't a factual investigation.
It was content creation. As the source notes referencing Ron
philip Kowski, they wanted sound bites for social media. They
wanted to humiliate her or generate viral clips for their base.
It was in a serious legal inquiry in any sense
of the word.
Speaker 1: It shows that one side is playing a massive game
of distraction while the other side is playing a very
real game of survival. They are muddying the waters with
total nonsense, so we don't look at the blood in
the water over by Wexner exactly.
Speaker 2: And speaking of distraction, that brings us to the political
fallout segment six.
Speaker 1: The reaction has been incredibly swift, at least from one
side of the aisle. People are definitely not letting this slide.
Speaker 2: Democratic representatives like Jamie Raskin, Dan Goldman, and Stacy Plaskett
are demanding that Lutnk testify immediately. They want him under
oath explaining that photo frame by frame. They want to
ask him, is that you were those your kids? Why
did you lie to the American public?
Speaker 1: And they aren't holding back on the past enablers either.
The source prominently mentions Alex Acosta and Bill.
Speaker 2: Barr Acosta who cut the original infamous sweetheart deal for
Epstein in Florida back in the day, the deal that
essentially let him continue his abuse for another decade. And
Bill Barr who oversaw the DOJ when Epstein died in
jail under very, let's say, suspicious circumstances. The source refers
to them as liars who should be prosecuted for perjury.
The core argument is that the government failed the victims
in every single turn, spanning multiple administrations, but specifically protected
by these powerful figures.
Speaker 1: And while all this is burning down websites, crashing photos,
leaking death threats, flying around depositions, what is the response
from the current DOJ leadership? What is Pambondi actually doing?
Speaker 2: She posted a selfie video a selfie video while the
website was allegedly being scrubbed of evidence. She posted a
video telling a heartwarming folksy story about Donald Trump hanging
a painting at a golf course.
Speaker 1: You are kidding, No.
Speaker 2: She talked glowingly about his attention to detail, because he
climbed a ladder to manually hang a portrait.
Speaker 1: Is that is the textbook definition of look over here.
It is jingling keys in front of a baby while
the house is literally on fire behind you. It feels
almost insulting to the basic intelligence of the American people.
Speaker 2: It is a calculated distraction tactic. Yeah, and the source
spends time speculating on the why why do this now?
Why so brazenly?
Speaker 1: What is the main theory?
Speaker 2: There several reasons. First, to protect Lutnik. He is a
high level appointee, the Commerce secretary. You cannot have your
Commerce secretary linked to a child trafficking island. It completely
destroys his credibility on the world stage. Second, to distract
the news cycle from the State of the Union address.
And third, and arguably most importantly, to keep those three
O twos, those raw witness statements, buried.
Speaker 1: Forever, because if those three O twos come out, if
the public actually reads the rawed interviews of what the
survivors said, the game is totally over. The narrative control
collapses completely.
Speaker 2: Exactly if the public sees the raw data, the carefully
constructed pr stories fall apart in an instant.
Speaker 1: So let's recap the threads we have pulled today, because
when you stack them all up, it is overwhelming.
Speaker 2: We have a verified photograph that proves the Commerce Secretary
lied about his relationship with a convicted sex trafficker.
Speaker 1: We have a government website that magically went dark specifically
to hide that exact photograph.
Speaker 2: We have a memo from the top ordering the destruction
or suppression of over ninety FBI witness reports.
Speaker 1: We have a billionaire witness being threatened with death by
his own lawyer in a formal deposition.
Speaker 2: And we have a coordinated distraction campaign involving UFOs and
golf course paintings to keep the public from looking into truth.
Speaker 1: It is a machine. It is a massive machine designed
to protect power at the absolute expense of truth and frankly,
at the expense of the victims who have been waiting
decades for real justice.
Speaker 2: And that raises the final, truly provocative question for everyone
listening today. If they are working this hard, shutting down servers,
threatening billionaires withholding files, just hide a single photo of
the Commerce secretary, what is in the files that they
haven't let slip yet.
Speaker 1: That is the question that keeps me up at night.
If this is what accidentally slipped through the cracks, what
is still hidden behind the wall.
Speaker 2: The glitch wasn't an error, It was a symptom of
something much much larger.
Speaker 1: We want to know exactly where you stand on this.
Is this mere incompetence, Is it just a buggy website
from an underfunded IT department? Or is the Department of
Justice acting as a personal defense firm for the administration.
Leave a comment below let us know what you think
about the glitch that.
Speaker 2: Wasn't We read every single response. This conversation is really
just starting.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us on thrilling threads. Keep pulling the string.
Speaker 2: Goodbye everyone, See
Speaker 1: You next time.