Speaker 1: Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Heli
Speaker 1: Maxwell if something I haven't thought about, it's really don't
Speaker 1: recommended that something I'm allowed to do it, but it's
Speaker 1: something I have not.
Speaker 2: Thought it, But you wouldn't rule it out.
Speaker 1: Something you're allowed to do but you haven't thought about it. Well,
Speaker 1: that's leaving the door open. Why why exactly? Well, Look,
Speaker 1: the initial reaction from people that are preennily black built
Speaker 1: I'm kind of in that camp myself, was that, oh
Speaker 1: my god, Donald Trump is going to pardon Giseling Maxwell,
Speaker 1: and that's going to be the end of this story. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm going to spin this potentially positively. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: this is going to be the outcome. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: this is an angle that I've been considering after this
Speaker 1: news broke that basically, the Deputy AG Todd Blanche met
Speaker 1: with Maxwell over the past two days. They were the
Speaker 1: first day was allegedly a very very long meeting and
Speaker 1: the second one was relatively short. But in that meeting
Speaker 1: he gave her limited immunity which allowed for her to sing,
Speaker 1: allowed for her to, I guess, blow the whistle or
Speaker 1: tell the truth about all of the clients that they
Speaker 1: were working with. Allegedly, she has discussed over one hundred
Speaker 1: names at this point. So I'm not exactly expecting the
Speaker 1: heavens to open up and a thousand people go to
Speaker 1: prison or anything like that. But what I was thinking
Speaker 1: is that, look, if Maxwell was a bit player in this,
Speaker 1: and I don't know that she was, I think that
Speaker 1: she had major involvement, and I think she knows where
Speaker 1: the bodies are buried rhetorically speaking, and she certainly deserves
Speaker 1: to be in prison, probably for the rest of her life.
Speaker 1: As of now, I think she's facing a twenty year
Speaker 1: sentence and she's been in for five, so she'll be
Speaker 1: out while she's still alive, like that's going to happen,
Speaker 1: So she's not in there for life. If and this
Speaker 1: is a big if, if the DOJ, if the Trump
Speaker 1: administration are actually interested in assuaging the public's concerns, which,
Speaker 1: as I've said in my prior series on this topic,
Speaker 1: is that I do not think that's what they're actually
Speaker 1: concerned with, and I think that they're just trying to
Speaker 1: pacify us while delivering us nothing. I will say, though, if,
Speaker 1: and this is a big if, if they were to
Speaker 1: offer her a pardon or a commutation of the remainder
Speaker 1: of her sentence, to actually provide testimony that leads to
Speaker 1: the convictions of dozens of the rich and powerful client
Speaker 1: tell that she and Epstein were working with, and if
Speaker 1: she were to actually lay out the story as to
Speaker 1: how they got away with it for as long as
Speaker 1: they did, why did they do what they did? Was
Speaker 1: this in fact a blackmail operation? Who did she work for?
Speaker 1: If we could actually get clarity on these things and
Speaker 1: prosecutions that lead to the imprisonment of some of the
Speaker 1: most powerful players in this organization, and maybe undermine the
Speaker 1: stranglehold that the intelligence community has over this country and
Speaker 1: over this government, well then I think that trade off
Speaker 1: is well worth making. And I know that I've already
Speaker 1: posted about this on x and I got major pushback
Speaker 1: and people were absolutely furious with me. But look, does
Speaker 1: Maxwell deserve to be free?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: But do the dozens, if not hundreds of John's that
Speaker 1: she was shuffling off these children to deserve to walk free,
Speaker 1: not just walk free, but actually, in many cases control
Speaker 1: major aspects of your life. The answer is absolutely not.
Speaker 1: So while this is far from a perfect solution, I'm
Speaker 1: just saying it would be better than what we have
Speaker 1: so far. Now, is the Trump administration actually head in
Speaker 1: that direction. I kind of doubt it. I mean the
Speaker 1: fact that you have reporting from Wall Street Journal others
Speaker 1: that are saying, oh, here's a birthday card, here's this,
Speaker 1: here's that signed by Donald Trump. Trump is alleging that
Speaker 1: they're all frauds and forgeries, and he's going to sue
Speaker 1: everybody into oblivion. I'm not so much interested in Donald
Speaker 1: Trump when it comes to this case. Yes, if he
Speaker 1: is actually a participant and did anything with someone under age,
Speaker 1: sure put him in prison forever. Don't care. Not the point.
Speaker 1: The point is, I think, and I have a lot
Speaker 1: of reason to think this, as I've laid out in
Speaker 1: the prior episode, So I won't go through all the details,
Speaker 1: but the biggest point being that Maria Farmer, one of
Speaker 1: the most high profile victims of Epstein and Maxwell, said
Speaker 1: repeatedly that there was pinhole cameras throughout not just the
Speaker 1: island or the islands, there's plural, as Ryan Dawson likes
Speaker 1: to correct me, but also his ranch in New Mexico,
Speaker 1: also his huge penthouse property in New York. Why is
Speaker 1: this guy just a pervert that's doing this for his
Speaker 1: own self satisfaction, I would imagine probably not How did
Speaker 1: he become such an incredibly rich person if he was
Speaker 1: just doing it for his own personal satisfaction. Look, it's
Speaker 1: obvious to me that this guy gott and we're talking
Speaker 1: extraordinarily wealthy, multiple jets and some of the biggest properties
Speaker 1: in everywhere that he lived and owned places he climbed
Speaker 1: the ladder in a way that begs the question how,
Speaker 1: and moreover, why why did he get to these lofty heights?
Speaker 1: Given that he wasn't this particularly gifted guy, he was
Speaker 1: just a tax accountant. How did he get to where
Speaker 1: he got? And I think that the answer is somewhere
Speaker 1: inside those pinhole cameras, And that's what I really want
Speaker 1: to know, not to downplay the victimization of all of
Speaker 1: the women that were victimized during this operation, but rather
Speaker 1: because until we know the full nature of this story,
Speaker 1: until we know to what heights it actually reaches, if
Speaker 1: it does, in fact reach into the highest levels of
Speaker 1: our government and actually into the highest levels of the
Speaker 1: deep state, which I believe it does, well, then that
Speaker 1: matters more than anything, because that means that you do
Speaker 1: not have electoral representation, you have blackmail victims at the
Speaker 1: highest levels ruling over you. So while the last thing
Speaker 1: I want to see is ghislaying Maxwell free to go
Speaker 1: on the view or whatever, which why, by the way,
Speaker 1: was just canceled or put on hiatus, Bye ladies. The
Speaker 1: last thing I want to see is this blackmail organization
Speaker 1: just continue to do what it has been doing for
Speaker 1: the past couple decades, but doing it under some new moniker,
Speaker 1: with some new creepy dude and gap. So does a
Speaker 1: pardon or a commutation for gisling Maxwell get us there? Well,
Speaker 1: it could, Does the DJ want to get us there?
Speaker 1: I'd say probably not. At this point it seems as
Speaker 1: if they are in cover up mode, or at least
Speaker 1: they have been in cover up mode. And I would
Speaker 1: imagine that if they do allow Gizline to sing for
Speaker 1: a lessening of her sentence, it would probably be to
Speaker 1: pin all of this on Democrat operatives and to obfuscate
Speaker 1: the reality that this was done on both sides of
Speaker 1: the aisle. So there are no perfect solutions, that's the
Speaker 1: unfortunate reality. But at this point it's about as unperfect
Speaker 1: as it gets. So what I like to see additional
Speaker 1: prosecutions if it means she gets out sooner. Sure, yes
Speaker 1: I would, because we need to understand the nature of
Speaker 1: this thing. It can't just live in the realm of
Speaker 1: conspiracy forever. It's extraordinarily important, which is why I've done
Speaker 1: now four episodes over the past two weeks about it, which,
Speaker 1: as you guys know, I do not cover the same
Speaker 1: topics that often, but I think that this one is
Speaker 1: really really important.
Speaker 4: I was very fortunate that President Clinton introduced me a
Speaker 4: lot of business leaders in London because he knew I
Speaker 4: was coming to the old VIC. Do you know who
Speaker 4: I never asked for anything was Jeffrey Epstein. I didn't
Speaker 4: want to be around this guy because I felt he
Speaker 4: put the president at risk on that trip to South
Speaker 4: Africa because there were these young girls and we were like.
Speaker 5: Who is this guy?
Speaker 1: So I will say this, so young girls on those
Speaker 1: young girls on those flights.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and that's been out. They've talked about it. But
Speaker 4: here's my point. There's a big difference between not remembering
Speaker 4: that I met some guy and some woman on a
Speaker 4: humanitarian trip where my focus was entirely on what we
Speaker 4: were there to do, and not remembering whether I went
Speaker 4: to somebody's island, So I never went to Jeffrey Epstein's island.
Speaker 4: I did not know him, and I never saw him
Speaker 4: or her after that morning at bucking Up. But he
Speaker 4: didn't even come to Buckamp House.
Speaker 1: The last thing I want to see is Gizling Maxwell
Speaker 1: going on Piers Morgan doing these reputational repair media blitzes.
Speaker 1: But that's kind of the trade off that you get here.
Speaker 1: I would like to know not just Kevin Spacey, but
Speaker 1: Chris Tucker, and I mean the list of people that
Speaker 1: were in the orbit of Epstein. I would like to
Speaker 1: know which of them were actually guilty of these crimes
Speaker 1: and which were not. And I think that unless you
Speaker 1: get someone to flip, someone who actually knows where the
Speaker 1: bodies are buried rhetorically speaking, someone who actually understands, why
Speaker 1: was Jeffrey Epstein given the plea bargain deal back in
Speaker 1: eight the sweetest of sweetheart deals anyone's ever seen for
Speaker 1: a case like that. Why someone knows? And it's not
Speaker 1: just Jeffrey Epstein that knows, and it's not just his
Speaker 1: lawyers that know. If there is someone else that knows,
Speaker 1: aside from the intell agencies which will never tell us,
Speaker 1: I would guess it's Gizzli and Maxwell. I think she
Speaker 1: probably really really knows.
Speaker 6: Do we know anything else about what they discussed, Paula.
Speaker 7: Well, we're learning a little bit, but there's still more
Speaker 7: questions than answers.
Speaker 3: We know.
Speaker 7: The two science met today for about three hours after
Speaker 7: talking through the day yesterday. Once again, her lawyer said
Speaker 7: she answered every question that she was asked, she did
Speaker 7: not invoke privilege, and when really pressed on exactly what
Speaker 7: she's being asked about, her lawyer said that they've asked
Speaker 7: about every single possible thing you can imagine, but then
Speaker 7: revealed that she was asked about maybe one hundred different people.
Speaker 7: She answered questions about everybody and did not hold anything back.
Speaker 7: I think that's sort of the biggest headline we've gotten
Speaker 7: out of these meetings so far.
Speaker 1: Now that's not to say she's trustworthy. She's certainly not.
Speaker 1: But if the commutation is contingent upon her providing corroborating
Speaker 1: evidence which must lead to convictions, or her sentence is
Speaker 1: not produced, well then we might get somewhere. We might
Speaker 1: actually get truth. And for that reason, if they were
Speaker 1: to actually proceed with this, she would need to have
Speaker 1: twenty four to seven security because undoubtedly she would be
Speaker 1: in the fire, just like Jeffrey Epstein was.
Speaker 8: As a leader of my party, I lead the Incumbent
Speaker 8: Protection Program. Okay, that's my job. I go all around
Speaker 8: the country. I travel endlessly, incessantly. I have to raise
Speaker 8: over three hundred million dollars to do that. And we
Speaker 8: want everybody to come back. And some people I try
Speaker 8: to protect them from themselves. You know, they kick and
Speaker 8: scream and bite their own colleagues. Some people seem to
Speaker 8: enjoy in trying to inflict political pain on their own teammates.
Speaker 8: I'm not going to address anybody individually, but I'll tell
Speaker 8: you that some here are much more frustrated than others.
Speaker 8: There's a small, small, tiny handful, but one in particular
Speaker 8: who's given me lots of consternation.
Speaker 6: I don't understand. I don't understand Thomas Massey's mood. I
Speaker 6: really don't. I don't know how his mind works. I
Speaker 6: don't know what he's thinking.
Speaker 8: Thomas Massey could have brought his discharge petition anytime over
Speaker 8: the last four and a half years, over the last
Speaker 8: four years of bidenminstration. He could have done that at
Speaker 8: any time, and now he's clamoring as if there's some
Speaker 8: sort of timeline on it.
Speaker 1: I got to stop it there, because this constant besmirching
Speaker 1: of Thomas Massey's good name is driving me out of
Speaker 1: my fucking mind. To be honest, Mike Johnson is a liar.
Speaker 1: Thomas Massey called for the full release of the Epstein
Speaker 1: files three times during Biden's presidency, so to pretend as if, oh,
Speaker 1: he's just now talking about it is a lie. Additionally,
Speaker 1: the reason that he's now pushing for additional maneuvers is
Speaker 1: because he sees an opportunity to actually get a vote
Speaker 1: pass that might actually lead somewhere. When you guys were
Speaker 1: in the minority, you had no Democrats that would have
Speaker 1: voted for this. Now you have the Democrats on board,
Speaker 1: and you have somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty GOP
Speaker 1: members that are also willing to proceed with this because
Speaker 1: their constituents won it. There's something just deeply disgusting about
Speaker 1: the way he phrases this or frames it rather that, Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a team player. I travel all over
Speaker 1: the country trying to get three hundred million dollars to
Speaker 1: make sure that the incumbents all stay put. Well, first off,
Speaker 1: I don't want all the incumbents to stay put. Some
Speaker 1: of you guys fucking suck. Actually most of you do,
Speaker 1: so most of you ought to be gone. Thomas Massey's
Speaker 1: like one of the only guys I would like to
Speaker 1: see stay. He an MTG and a few others, But
Speaker 1: I think what was most notable is that he goes.
Speaker 1: I don't know how this guy's mind works. Thomas Massey
Speaker 1: is one of the most transparent politicians I've ever encountered.
Speaker 1: Every single vote, particularly ones that are controversial, he posts online.
Speaker 1: Sometimes he'll do a video of it where he explains
Speaker 1: exactly his justification and his reasoning. And by the way,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that I've disagreed with maybe two of
Speaker 1: his votes ever, he has always put forward an explanation
Speaker 1: that is at least sound, at least justifiable, at least understandable.
Speaker 1: Whereas the rest of you, these team players that are
Speaker 1: all defending the swamp, that's not what we want. The
Speaker 1: reason you can't understand the mind of Thomas Massey is
Speaker 1: because he actually is interested in delivering for his constituents,
Speaker 1: not for his team. His team is the American people.
Speaker 1: The better question for you Mike is why are the
Speaker 1: American people not your concern? Why is your concern the team?
Speaker 1: Why is your concern the GOP swamp? And when you
Speaker 1: answer that, you will finally understand why he is beloved
Speaker 1: and you are reviled.
Speaker 8: It's interesting to me that he chose the election of
Speaker 8: President Trump to bring this, to team up with the
Speaker 8: Democrats and bring this discharge petition.
Speaker 6: So do I have some concern about that? I do,
Speaker 6: But you know, in me, in my way, I I
Speaker 6: try to follow.
Speaker 8: Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment, never speak evil of another Republican.
Speaker 6: My gosh, it's hard to do sometimes. Right here.
Speaker 8: I also try to follow the scripture. You know, it says,
Speaker 8: bless those who persecute you. So let me just say
Speaker 8: about Thomas Massey. Could you just accept my southern bless
Speaker 8: his heart?
Speaker 6: Okay? I don't know what else to say about it.
Speaker 8: We're for maximum transparency, we're engaging in that right now,
Speaker 8: and we don't need political geiinting.
Speaker 1: I think the better question is, Mike, why do you
Speaker 1: feel as if you're being persecuted? Why is his pressure,
Speaker 1: which by the way, is an alignment with the MAGA base,
Speaker 1: which allegedly are the people you're supposed to represent. Correct, No, okay,
Speaker 1: he is trying to deliver on campaign promises made by
Speaker 1: your guy, Donald Trump. So sorry that he's actually listening
Speaker 1: to the voters here, but that's one of the major
Speaker 1: reasons that Trump's approval ratings are plummeting, particularly amongst young men,
Speaker 1: which are just I mean plunging doesn't even do a
Speaker 1: justice down like thirty forty points. It's unbelievable. And the
Speaker 1: biggest thing, the biggest category that's listed as to why,
Speaker 1: is the handling of the Epstein case. This is a
Speaker 1: self inflicted wound. You did not need to go down
Speaker 1: this path. You promised these things. The fact that you're
Speaker 1: not delivering on them does not make Thomas Massey the
Speaker 1: bad guy. It actually makes him the good guy. That
Speaker 1: he's the one that's willing to continue for the fight
Speaker 1: to deliver on the promises that you made. If you
Speaker 1: expect us to flip on him because he's not a
Speaker 1: team player, you're alreadyr fucking mind. You're not a team player.
Speaker 1: You're not actually delivering what your voters demanded, what they
Speaker 1: voted for, So spare me.
Speaker 2: It's a present.
Speaker 9: The other day, a reporter asked you about Galleine Maxwell.
Speaker 9: You said, quote, I just wish her well. Frankly, I've
Speaker 9: met her numerous times over the years, especially since I
Speaker 9: lived in Palm Beach, But I wish her well. Whatever
Speaker 9: it is, Miss President Gleeen Maxwell has been arrested on
Speaker 9: allegations of child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a.
Speaker 6: Person well, I don't know that, but I do know
Speaker 6: that she has.
Speaker 9: She's been arrested for that friend or boyfriend Epstein was
Speaker 9: either killed or committed suicide in jail.
Speaker 5: She's now in jail.
Speaker 2: Uh huh, Yeah, I wish you well.
Speaker 5: I'd wish you well.
Speaker 2: I'd wish a lot of people well good luck.
Speaker 5: Let them prove somebody was guilty.
Speaker 2: I mean, you do you know this?
Speaker 9: Oh, so you're saying you hope she doesn't die in jail.
Speaker 9: Is that what you mean by wish her well? Her
Speaker 9: boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying to
Speaker 9: figure out how did it happen?
Speaker 6: Was it suicide?
Speaker 5: Was he killed? And I do wish you well. I'm
Speaker 5: not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking
Speaker 5: bad for anybody.
Speaker 7: And they took that and I mean she's a.
Speaker 2: Big deal. But all it is is her boyfriend died.
Speaker 6: He died in jail.
Speaker 2: Was he killed?
Speaker 6: Was it suicide?
Speaker 2: I do I wish her well.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna move off this topic now because I feel
Speaker 1: like I've beaten it to death. But I just got
Speaker 1: to say that is such a bizarre answer from Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: I wish her well. Like if you want to say,
Speaker 1: I'd like to, you know, reserve judgment until the jury's
Speaker 1: heard the case. I'm the president of the United State,
Speaker 1: because that was in twenty twenty, I think, right before
Speaker 1: the election. Like maybe he wants to say, Look, I
Speaker 1: don't want to put my voice or my you know,
Speaker 1: thumb on the scale of justice when it comes to
Speaker 1: this case. It's too important. Let's let the jury decide.
Speaker 1: Like those are all fine answers. To say you wish
Speaker 1: her well is just bizarre, and honestly, I think it's
Speaker 1: because he had a relationship with her. Like I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that he had a romantic relationship or that he
Speaker 1: was a participant with the trafficking stuff. I don't think
Speaker 1: that he actually was. I think if he were, there'd
Speaker 1: probably be evidence that would have circulated by now. And
Speaker 1: I haven't ever seen it, not saying that it's impossible,
Speaker 1: just saying I haven't seen it, but it's obvious. There
Speaker 1: is a lot of evidence that she has been at
Speaker 1: a lot of functions with him in this elite, creepy
Speaker 1: circles that they run in, and I think he knew
Speaker 1: well and he probably was somewhat fond of her. And
Speaker 1: that's odd to put it mildly, but I think until
Speaker 1: we get the truth about this, until we actually understand
Speaker 1: who were the creeps, who were the blackmail victims, who
Speaker 1: were the Johns, who were the rich and powerful, who
Speaker 1: were the intell agencies that were running the shit. Until
Speaker 1: we have these answers, it's just going to continue to
Speaker 1: create insanity. And no one's going to move on from this,
Speaker 1: not for any extended period of time. It's just going
Speaker 1: to sit on the back burner. Like sure it won't
Speaker 1: be on the front burner, it'll be on the back burner,
Speaker 1: but it's just going to be sitting there simmer for
Speaker 1: the rest of your presidency. We need answers, we need justice,
Speaker 1: we need prosecutions, and most importantly, we need to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of how this operation ran, who ran it,
Speaker 1: and then make sure that it can't ever happen again,
Speaker 1: particularly if our intelligence agencies were operating, and if it
Speaker 1: was foreign intelligence, well then we need to change our
Speaker 1: relationship with those nations immediately as in cease them, cease
Speaker 1: those relations. It's insane that we would ever allow a
Speaker 1: foreign intell agency to do what appear apparently was being
Speaker 1: done in our country. Did you have any type of
Speaker 1: relationship with Biden?
Speaker 3: Not the same? I've known Biden for what is it
Speaker 3: forty years? Almost as as long, well both of them
Speaker 3: over the decas. It was a different relationship. It was
Speaker 3: a friendship, but also it evolved into how shall I
Speaker 3: say this, severe disagreements and with Donald Trump we've had
Speaker 3: powerful agreements, and where there's no daylight between an American
Speaker 3: president and Israeli prime minister, amazing things can happen.
Speaker 1: The obvious connection between these clips that I'm playing is that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that there was foreign intel involved, and I
Speaker 1: think that Nan Yahoo knows about it intimately. And this
Speaker 1: is why it's so concerning when you see a foreign diplomat,
Speaker 1: a prime minister like Dan Yahoo saying, I mean, is
Speaker 1: anybody comfortable, no matter how you feel about Israel Is
Speaker 1: anybody comfortable with a foreign leader saying there is no
Speaker 1: daylight between he and Donald Trump. When there's no daylight
Speaker 1: between an American president and a Israeli prime minister, incredible
Speaker 1: things can happen. Well, I've been looking at the results
Speaker 1: of some of your actions, mister Dan Yahoo, and I
Speaker 1: don't think it's incredible at all. I mean, it's incredible
Speaker 1: that it persists, it's incredible that it's allowed to continue.
Speaker 1: But I don't think it's incredible because he's saying it
Speaker 1: in a really positive connotation. I think it's an extraordinarily
Speaker 1: negative connotation. And even if there was no Warren guys.
Speaker 1: By the way, there's way more than the Warren guys
Speaker 1: that they're bombing, like four or five nations over the
Speaker 1: past couple of years. But even if they were involved
Speaker 1: in hostilities with their neighbors, still I want there to
Speaker 1: be daylight between the American president and any foreign nation.
Speaker 1: There should be daylight. If you are prioritizing the considerations
Speaker 1: of your people, there must be daylight. You cannot have
Speaker 1: no daylight between an American president and the leader of
Speaker 1: any foreign country. That means you're servile to that country.
Speaker 1: And that's the problem. And this is the pushback that
Speaker 1: people continue to give on this issue, and rightfully so,
Speaker 1: it's very unhealthy. And I don't know why it has
Speaker 1: been ignored for so long, but at some point you
Speaker 1: just have to see it for what it is. We
Speaker 1: should not have a relationship with a foreign country that's
Speaker 1: this lockstep. There has to be differences of opinion. Now
Speaker 1: maybe he's framing it, and there is in fact more
Speaker 1: difference of opinion behind the scenes. That you had that
Speaker 1: big moment almost a month ago now where Trump said
Speaker 1: they don't know what the fuck they're doing and he
Speaker 1: was very upsessed, like that was the one time that
Speaker 1: I've seen and I would like there to be a
Speaker 1: little bit more daylight, like a lot, like a spotlight
Speaker 1: of daylight. If we could get that, that would be great.
Speaker 1: And here is why that relationship matters, no matter how
Speaker 1: you feel about the country. This is why that relationship
Speaker 1: is a dangerous by.
Speaker 10: Partisan legislation where requires social media companies for a lease
Speaker 10: detailed public reports and violations of their terms for service
Speaker 10: and to outline how they're addressing these violations, which includes
Speaker 10: the use of their platforms by Paris groups every day.
Speaker 10: Companies don't to report this information, it will result in
Speaker 10: a five million dollar fine. Social media companies can no
Speaker 10: longer hide the crimes and take place on their platforms,
Speaker 10: especially when they pose a threat to America's national security.
Speaker 10: And we're very proud of this bill as the backing
Speaker 10: of the Anti Defamation League Freak.
Speaker 2: I saw antisotism for the first level. I was fifteen
Speaker 2: years old. I had good parents who taught me it
Speaker 2: was ron and but it love the lasting oppression. I'll
Speaker 2: seeing my first incident as a teenager. And if you're
Speaker 2: on my social media, you see an every day from
Speaker 2: people that are responding man with what I can sort
Speaker 2: of clually anti spemic kind of muscleges on social media.
Speaker 2: I saw an article today it was about me both Timebob,
Speaker 2: we pose cows of you are pro Zionists, right, and
Speaker 2: you're like in other words, it's all over our social
Speaker 2: media and it's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: Health insurance is confusing, expensive and frustrate, and claim denials
Speaker 1: are becoming more and more common. In fact, one in
Speaker 1: five Obamacare claims were denied last year. That's just unacceptable.
Speaker 1: The headache of health insurance is exactly why crowd health
Speaker 1: was created. It's not health insurance. It's a better way
Speaker 1: to pay for healthcare through crowdfunding. So stop sending money
Speaker 1: to big insurance companies who profit off of not paying
Speaker 1: your bills and check out crowd help. For one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy five dollars for an individual or five hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy five dollars for a family of four or more.
Speaker 1: You'll get access to a community of people who are
Speaker 1: willing to help out in the event of an emergency.
Speaker 1: You get access telemedicine visits, diskind of prescriptions, and so
Speaker 1: much more without doctor's networks getting in the way. And
Speaker 1: of course, you'll join the crowd, a group of members
Speaker 1: just like you who want to help pay for each
Speaker 1: other's unexpected medical events. Let crowd health help with your
Speaker 1: health care needs. Get start today for just nine nine
Speaker 1: dollars per month for your first three months by using
Speaker 1: code lockdown at joincrowdhealth dot com. Crowdhealth is not insurance.
Speaker 1: Learn more at join crowdhealth dot com. That's join crowdhealth
Speaker 1: dot com. Code lockdown, Get you some now. That's representative
Speaker 1: Gottheimer Democrat and Bacon Republican standing there next to Jonathan
Speaker 1: Greenbla at the head of the ADL announcing a bill
Speaker 1: that they're pushing to try and basically criminalize and apply
Speaker 1: additional pressure to social media companies to provide reports on
Speaker 1: anti Semitism hate speech online. Well, last I checked, it's
Speaker 1: a private company, bro, Why are you applying pressure. Why
Speaker 1: is it not up to them to decide on what grounds?
Speaker 1: Can you actually push this and is it not a
Speaker 1: clear first amend violation to do so? I would argue
Speaker 1: that it probably is.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: The way they work around that is by saying, well,
Speaker 1: they just have to provide us reports. We're not actually
Speaker 1: compelling them to censor. But you know where this leads.
Speaker 1: That's the pressure that they're putting off because they I mean,
Speaker 1: Bacon even says it. He says, this is unacceptable. Well,
Speaker 1: I see you all this hateful stuff every day and
Speaker 1: it's got to go away. Well, that's censorship from a
Speaker 1: government official. You're pushing to control the narrative on the internet.
Speaker 1: Totally not okay. And to stand up there next to Greenblatt,
Speaker 1: who's just this constantly preaching about hate speech being everywhere
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah is just insulting. It's insulting to
Speaker 1: the American people that you guys have a relationship with
Speaker 1: a group like that. I mean, it's about as Unamerican
Speaker 1: as it gets. Sorry, look, I'm not in love with
Speaker 1: hate speech. I think that it does go too far
Speaker 1: at times, and people certainly go buck wild on the internet,
Speaker 1: But so what, grow the fuck up? I mean, it's
Speaker 1: so crazy because simultaneously we see like just unbelievable death
Speaker 1: and destruction in Gaza, and then on the inverse of that,
Speaker 1: you go like, there's a lot of hatred going on
Speaker 1: on the internet, all these bad words. It's like, what's
Speaker 1: more offensive to you, Don Bacon? Is it the thousands
Speaker 1: of blown up kids or is it negative words? Says?
Speaker 1: All I can tell is that your entire priority is
Speaker 1: the hateful words. Who gives a shit about the hateful words? Seriously,
Speaker 1: grow up? I mean, And it's just so insulting because
Speaker 1: it's so obvious that they're doing this for their campaign
Speaker 1: contributors like Crystal Clear. I don't believe that anybody. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe there are people in the GOP that are just
Speaker 1: that cucked that they don't care about free speech. I'm
Speaker 1: sure there are probably hundreds of them, actually, but regardless,
Speaker 1: it's sick, it's totally on American It's totally unconstitutional, and
Speaker 1: fuck you if you support any laws that dictate social
Speaker 1: media and finds. If they don't deliver reports on hateful
Speaker 1: phrases being used on the Internet, it's childish. Grow up.
Speaker 1: This topic is totally off the beaten path, but I
Speaker 1: thought it was a really interesting take and I wanted
Speaker 1: to break it down with you guys.
Speaker 5: My interest in this may have come from the fact that,
Speaker 5: for some reason my father had one brother. He said
Speaker 5: to both of us, I'm not going to leave you anything,
Speaker 5: and I thought that was rather interesting. It didn't seem
Speaker 5: to bother me at all. My brother he wasn't so
Speaker 5: keen on the idea, but he told us, and we knew,
Speaker 5: and so we had to go out in the world
Speaker 5: knowing that's what was going to happen. A lot of
Speaker 5: people say, well, look, it's so hard. It's so hard.
Speaker 5: You've got to help your children. I can't get it
Speaker 5: out of my head. What about all the children that
Speaker 5: won't get anything at all? It just seems very unfair
Speaker 5: on them that, through an accident of birth that some
Speaker 5: people get a leg up, some people get a massive
Speaker 5: leg up, some people get a little leg up. But
Speaker 5: they're not going to get anything. And I don't know
Speaker 5: why I think that way. I just think it isn't
Speaker 5: fair because my son hasn't done anything to other than
Speaker 5: be born to me to earn that money. So I
Speaker 5: think we need to think again myself. I know I'm
Speaker 5: pretty much on my own on this, but I'm not
Speaker 5: sure whether just an automatic leaving things to family is
Speaker 5: anymore used to be. But I'm not so sure anymore.
Speaker 9: What are you going to do with this money?
Speaker 5: If you don't leave it to you, Sonny, you're going
Speaker 5: to spend, spend something like Vive Nicholson. Now what I'm
Speaker 5: actually doing is I'm setting up a charitable trust, leaving
Speaker 5: Arlo a job if he wants to take it, working
Speaker 5: for that charity, helping to give money away to good call.
Speaker 1: That last line there is so telling, so so so
Speaker 1: telling and heartbreaking honestly, So let me explain why. When
Speaker 1: he says at the end, she goes, oh, so what
Speaker 1: are you going to do with that money? He goes, well,
Speaker 1: I'm going to give him a job if he'll help
Speaker 1: in giving the money away to good cause. So good causes.
Speaker 1: So your son is not a good cause. I mean,
Speaker 1: think about how how bizarre that is like these people,
Speaker 1: because that's I mean, that's what these other charitable foundations do, right,
Speaker 1: They're going to create other avenues of assistance for other people,
Speaker 1: not your son. So they are a word cause, but
Speaker 1: your child is not. And I look, I think that
Speaker 1: this topic has been mulled over. And by the way
Speaker 1: he says he's alone in this, he's not alone in this.
Speaker 1: This is a common practice and an increasingly common practice
Speaker 1: amongst the most wealthy, particularly on the left side, like
Speaker 1: the billionaire democrat classy. They tend to do these giving
Speaker 1: pledges where they're going to give their wealth away and
Speaker 1: they're going to leave their children with, you know, either
Speaker 1: nothing or very little. And the argument has been made
Speaker 1: that and I think that this is a valid one
Speaker 1: that oftentimes if you give your inheritance to your kids
Speaker 1: when they're very young, it can spoil them. And while
Speaker 1: that's no doubt true in some instances, we're not talking
Speaker 1: about children. Assuming that you die of natural causes or
Speaker 1: just nothing catastrophic in your forties fifties, that means that
Speaker 1: your kid will be forty or fifty or sixty or
Speaker 1: seventy years old himself when you pass away. So do
Speaker 1: you honestly think that that will be a life wrecker
Speaker 1: for him? Now, he didn't even make this argument I'm
Speaker 1: trying to steal men his side of the argument that
Speaker 1: I could see a case to be made that you
Speaker 1: do not want to leave a large sum of money
Speaker 1: to a young person who hasn't really established themselves, because
Speaker 1: it'll it'll basically, it's like it's like welfare. It basically
Speaker 1: absorbs some of that competitive drive that you need to
Speaker 1: succeed to get somewhere. But I think that there's a
Speaker 1: bigger point that's totally overlooked when it comes to this subject,
Speaker 1: is that, according to calculations based off of minimum wage
Speaker 1: and purchasing power of housing, I saw this video go
Speaker 1: viral earlier this morning where it said that in the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies, like to have the same purchasing power for
Speaker 1: a home today as you did in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: the minimum wage today would need to be over sixty
Speaker 1: dollars an hour. Now that's not to say that the
Speaker 1: dollar has diminished that much purchasing power, though it has
Speaker 1: diminished a ton, But rather housing is so much more
Speaker 1: expensive that when you combine the two minimum wage which
Speaker 1: I think was like three bucks in the seventies is
Speaker 1: now would now need to be over Actually it was
Speaker 1: probably in the two dollar range, good lord, but it
Speaker 1: would now need to be in the sixties in order
Speaker 1: to match that purchasing power. So the argument that I'm
Speaker 1: making is that it's extremely hard for this generation to
Speaker 1: get a house. This is not this is not just like,
Speaker 1: oh woe is me? Our generation has it the hardest,
Speaker 1: and it's just like playing the victim card, like this
Speaker 1: is a fucking fact. This is the t You could
Speaker 1: get a house and a you know, the white picket
Speaker 1: fence and the family and the two dogs and the
Speaker 1: kids and all that, and you could do it on
Speaker 1: a maybe not a starting position, but certainly on a
Speaker 1: mid level position. And many many corporations in this country
Speaker 1: also pensions existed. They don't really anymore. There's a lot
Speaker 1: that has changed. You could think globalization, you can think
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of government actions, including inflation, that have
Speaker 1: contributed to this phenomenon. But I think that it's really
Speaker 1: sad that his generation, the Boomer generation or thereabouts, got
Speaker 1: extraordinarily wealthy on the biggest credit bubble in human history.
Speaker 1: Most of them got wealthy. I'm not talking about the
Speaker 1: high earners that actually create something special or work their
Speaker 1: asses off, like there's exceptions to this rule, But a
Speaker 1: lot of people, like the middle class that are now millionaires,
Speaker 1: they got it just by buying a home and then
Speaker 1: riding the inflationary wave until that starter home became worth
Speaker 1: a million bucks or more. Sometimes they got two or
Speaker 1: three homes and they felt like geniuses because it tripled
Speaker 1: or quadrupled or ten x in value from the time
Speaker 1: they bought it. I'm not trying to degrade these people,
Speaker 1: like God bless. All I'm saying is that you had
Speaker 1: a massive advantage that your children do not have and
Speaker 1: will not have, and you don't want to pass that
Speaker 1: on to them. And I think that the really tragic
Speaker 1: thing about this is his perception didn't actually go here.
Speaker 1: But the way I read it is if you think
Speaker 1: handing wealth down to your children will destroy them, well,
Speaker 1: and I think the real problem is that you didn't
Speaker 1: do a good job parenting your children. Why have you
Speaker 1: not built them up to have a foundation that's so
Speaker 1: solid that even if they were to receive a windfall
Speaker 1: in financial gains that they could still keep their shit together.
Speaker 1: Does that not say something about you? Does it not
Speaker 1: say something about your parenting that if they were to
Speaker 1: hit the lotto they just start doing hookers and blow
Speaker 1: until they die young? Like, is that really how you
Speaker 1: view them? And if you do view them that way,
Speaker 1: why do you take no personal responsibility in that? Why
Speaker 1: do you feel no shame in saying it? And he
Speaker 1: didn't even go this direction. He's just basically saying, my
Speaker 1: kids aren't a good cause, they're not a good enough car.
Speaker 1: They didn't do anything to earn it. Well, did the
Speaker 1: fucking poor person at the foundation that you're gonna hand
Speaker 1: the money off to do anything to earn it? No,
Speaker 1: they didn't. They're just down on their luck and guess what,
Speaker 1: so were your kids. Why do you prioritize strangers over
Speaker 1: your own family? How fucked up is that? There is
Speaker 1: no examples in human history I can think of where
Speaker 1: this became common practice where people started to prioritize strangers
Speaker 1: over their own family. It's ultimately why we're just seeing
Speaker 1: the death of the West, that we don't care about
Speaker 1: ourselves as much as we do fucking foreigners. How crazy
Speaker 1: is that? It's not sustainable any civilization that looks at
Speaker 1: things this way will quickly meet its demise. I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm jumping to conclusions here. It's just logical if
Speaker 1: you acquire wealth for your family, and by the way,
Speaker 1: your children suffered. This guy's a writer in a comic right,
Speaker 1: so that meant he traveled in so they didn't get
Speaker 1: to be with him a lot. I'm sure he's a standing,
Speaker 1: you know, traveling comic. So all of the absenteeism that
Speaker 1: comes with a high income earning parent usually it's offset
Speaker 1: by the fact that, like, yeah, there's financial windfall that
Speaker 1: come with his hard work, and God bless I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to degrade him for it again. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: is that trade off, Like you got to go out
Speaker 1: and live your dreams and go travel the world and
Speaker 1: be a stand up comic and make millions of dollars
Speaker 1: and your kids didn't get to see you, and now
Speaker 1: you go, Ah, these fucking worthless kids, they probably fuck
Speaker 1: it up anyways, right, So I'm not going to hand
Speaker 1: them any inheritance. Be Stlee. It's sick. And I'm not
Speaker 1: making this pitch because like, I don't think that you should.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying like you should give up I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that you can't buy a house, that you can't
Speaker 1: become wealthy, that you can't start a company and become
Speaker 1: wildly successful. You can't, So I'm not saying that. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying it's much harder today than it was in
Speaker 1: his younger years. There is nothing wrong with trying to
Speaker 1: make sure that your progeny survive and thrive. And might
Speaker 1: I add, if you don't hand down the wealth to
Speaker 1: your children, to your offspring in this environment, this inflationary environment,
Speaker 1: which was extraordinarily hard to buy a house, start a family,
Speaker 1: have kids, the dogs, white pick of fence at all,
Speaker 1: that a pension. If you don't hand down that wealth
Speaker 1: to the when they're in their thirties, forties, fifty, you
Speaker 1: probably aren't getting grandkids. Your bloodline will probably end as
Speaker 1: a consequence of your selfishness that you would rather hand
Speaker 1: it off to strangers in a far away land than
Speaker 1: hand it to the direct lineag your own children. It's reprehensible.
Speaker 1: You should be shamed for this worldview, honestly, and I'm
Speaker 1: probably taking too hard line of a stance on it,
Speaker 1: but I think I'm right. I think that this is
Speaker 1: a sickness in some ways. It actually seems to signify
Speaker 1: self hatred that you think so little of yourself and
Speaker 1: probably have shame over your skin or your gender, and
Speaker 1: this whole woke worldview that you now hate your own kids,
Speaker 1: that you don't want them to reproduce, You don't want
Speaker 1: them to prosper, you don't want them to actually conquer anything.
Speaker 1: You want them to fall away, to go extinct. It's tragic.
Speaker 1: And I hope if there's any boomers out there watching
Speaker 1: or listening, that you will think deeply about what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: That I am not t t to plead victim for
Speaker 1: the younger generations, but rather I think there has been
Speaker 1: a failure to prioritize the lineage, the children, the generations
Speaker 1: that come after you. And I assure you this is
Speaker 1: not a phenomenon that you're gonna come across in Asian
Speaker 1: cultures China. You think that they're handing it off to
Speaker 1: third world charities, now they're gonna hand it off to
Speaker 1: their kids and they're gonna try and conquer the fucking planet.
Speaker 1: And if you think that you shouldn't be helping your
Speaker 1: kids do the same, well, then expect your nations to
Speaker 1: be conquered in short order. You absolute pussies. Well that's
Speaker 1: a ranch you didn't expect.
Speaker 6: Huh.
Speaker 1: If you enjoy this episode, hit the like button. Uh,
Speaker 1: subscribe always and make sure you pick up your cousin,
Speaker 1: your niece, your nephew, your grandma, your uncle, your aunt,
Speaker 1: and all your best if you have any friends, which
Speaker 1: I know in this internet age very few of us
Speaker 1: have any friends. But if you have any IRL friends
Speaker 1: or even Internet friends, uh, pick up their phone and
Speaker 1: subscribe to Liberty Like that's that you never miss an episode.
Speaker 1: Make sure you hit the updates and just share it around.
Speaker 1: That helps your Nnesley. And last but not least, I
Speaker 1: got to make a quick apology to Owen Schroyer feel
Speaker 1: absolutely terrible about this. He is, you know, one of
Speaker 1: the Info Wars guys. He's fucking awesome and I'm a
Speaker 1: huge fan of his and I had him scheduled to
Speaker 1: do the show. I had him scheduled from one to
Speaker 1: two Eastern. He's in Texas time, and he messaged me
Speaker 1: after we had it booked and he said, I get like, basically,
Speaker 1: make sure you have me out by one fifty. He's
Speaker 1: got a heart out, got another show. He's got to do,
Speaker 1: or maybe he's got his own show. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: what I have this physical calendar because I'm a boomer myself,
Speaker 1: and I circled too to remind myself to have him
Speaker 1: out before too, like heart out like circle two. Then
Speaker 1: I woke up the next day and I glanced at
Speaker 1: the calendar and I saw the two circled, and I
Speaker 1: thought it started it too, as opposed to one with
Speaker 1: a heart out at one p fifty. Oh, I'm such
Speaker 1: an idiot. If never blown it that bad ever. I
Speaker 1: told him I'd pay him for his time. I did
Speaker 1: whatever I could to make it up to him. He's
Speaker 1: obviously he should be. It was a fucking huge slap
Speaker 1: in the face and the waste of his time. And
Speaker 1: I've had people do that to me in the past
Speaker 1: as a guest a couple of times, and I always
Speaker 1: fucking hate them when they do it to me, so
Speaker 1: I deserve every ounce of anger I'm sure he has
Speaker 1: towards me, but my sincere, deepest apologies. And I'm doing
Speaker 1: it publicly because I felt that bad about it. But
Speaker 1: it's just it's just a freak thing. I've literally never
Speaker 1: done that to anybody ever, and I never will again.
Speaker 1: But man, I feel terrible, so he said. He responded,
Speaker 1: he said, you know, I definitely can't do it this week,
Speaker 1: maybe next, and that was where he left it.
Speaker 3: Va.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I'll ever hear from him again,
Speaker 1: but if if you see him on the Internet or anywhere,
Speaker 1: let him know I'm sincerely sorry and I would love
Speaker 1: to have him on the show. I think we would
Speaker 1: have an incredible conversation. And if you're a fan of
Speaker 1: his as well, make sure you let him know that
Speaker 1: you still want to see him on Liberty Lockdown. But
Speaker 1: Clint Russell, my apologies on you're the man, all right
Speaker 1: right here