New Crimes (Allegedly) Revealed By the Epstein Files

Hello everybody. Welcome back to another episode of the casual criminalist. I'm Simon and today new crimes allegedly revealed by the Epstein files. There's millions of files with a whole lot of crimes in them. It's going to be a content mine forever.

Anyway, the format of the show is Kevin writes it, I read it. Let's jump in. [music]

I've never really been one to believe in conspiracy theories. However, something that I learned from writing for Decoding the Unknown is that this was entirely by design. As you're all aware, in the summer of 1947, an object crashed on a farm outside Roswell in New Mexico. That object was recovered by the US Army Air Forces, who issued a press release stating that they recovered a flying disc that had crashed on a farm. The next day, they released a new press statement saying, "Just a joke. It was a balloon."

This was a calculated decision made by the military because while the object was in fact a balloon, it was not a weather balloon, at least not entirely. The balloon was part of Project Mogul, a top secret program designed to listen for evidence of Soviet nuclear weapons testing. This was something the US viewed as being a matter of when, not if. Well, they were right, weren't they? There were already reports of UFOs all over the world. So, the military decided to release the UFO story to distract us from the more mundane but still highly classified reality. And oh boy, did they do an incredible job at that because it's what, 60 years late? No, was it 40 nearly 80 years later and we're still like, yes, yes, aliens.

Pictures of the debris recovered from Roswell were published in newspapers, and it was very clearly something akin to a weather balloon rather than anything that would have been capable of interplanetary flight. But some people clung to the story presented in the original press release, choosing to believe that the government had recovered extraterrestrials in Roswell and was now trying to cover it up. Like I said though, this was all part of a brilliant plan. It was a coordinated effort to turn the very word conspiracy into a joke and to ensure the conspiracy theorists were endlessly ridiculed and derided by their peers for generations to come. Pretty smart move then.

The plan worked perfectly and the phrase conspiracy theory now carries with it a very negative and dubious connotation. Unless you're really into conspiracy theories. You're just like they're just theories, bro. Or like it's a real con. No, sorry. It's a real conspiracy. It's a con. It's an actual con conspiracy. Yeah. Like a conspiracy is a real thing. A conspiracy theory is not. I'm sorry. It's very early on Monday morning. I'm just I'm just warming up, you know. Just warming up.

This sort of multi-generational propaganda has happened multiple times throughout America's history with every American being indoctrinated from a young age to believe that conspiracies can't possibly exist. That everybody before Christopher Columbus thought the world was flat and the capitalism somehow hasn't been the most destructive force in all of human history. I [snorts] know I don't quite agree with that last one. I say religion. It's probably way up there.

In reality, however, we have learned that conspiracies absolutely do exist. That's not to say that the Earth is flat, the moon landing was a hoax, or that Area 51 is full of aliens. Those theories are obviously nonsense proposed by lunatics. But we've learned from declassified documents that there were very real government conspiracies taking place shortly after Roswell was used to convince people that conspiracy theorists were all idiots. It wasn't long after that that the government began programs like MK Ultra and Operation Mockingbird.

Yeah, I mean I totally like conspiracy theories uh conspiracy theories until someone's like, "Oh, that one's real." Like the one I always come back to is the Edward Snowden leaks where it's like, "Oh, the government can't possibly be spying on us like that. That's crazy. They don't have the ability to do that. Edward Snowden is like, "Oh, my beer." And they do. And it turned from conspiracy theory, tinfoil hat people, to being reality. And of course, that can happen.

Then there were the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King. I wrote about both of those on Decoding the Unknown. And I had started researching under the assumption that it would just be some fun conspiracy theories we could laugh at together. However, it didn't take long to become clear that there was much more going on than in the official story. I don't remember the Martin Luther King details, but the JFK one, I'm like, I mean, I don't know what's going on, but we don't know everything for sure, right? It's just too weird.

Now, we once again find ourselves in a similar situation. For years, people on the internet talked about a satanic cabal of cannibalistic predators who sexually abused and tortured children, a group made up entirely of billionaires, politicians, and other global elites. These people were ridiculed and mocked for all of their theories that were provably false. But the latest release of the Epstein files shows that they were at least partially right. I mean, yes, sexual abuse, but cannibalistic predators torturing children. [laughter and gasps] Let's see. While there isn't any credible evidence that they were satanic or cannibalistic, well, there we go. Shut down real fast, didn't we, Capster? It seems that there really was a child sex trafficking ring created to service billionaires and politicians from around the globe. I'd say I owe Qanon an apology, but the Epstein files also reveal that he seems to have had a hand in creating the rise of the organization. Oh, how about that? Regardless, it turns out that the conspiracy theory was real all along, and the more people search the Epstein files, the worse it gets.

The files reveal what appears to be a myriad of criminal activity by countless perpetrators, quite possibly including torture and murder. But the criminality isn't related solely to the content of the Epstein files. In 1947, the government told a clever lie to poison the word conspiracy for decades to come. The current administration has been trying to hold that line, but they're not actually good at it. They claimed that the Epstein files were a hoax, and that all 1,000 plus victims were trafficked solely to Epstein with nobody else involved. Even as people discovered more and more evidence to the contrary, by combing through the files, the party told us to reject the evidence of our eyes and ears. However, the administration's actions have repeatedly crossed the line from a bewildering refusal to hold child sex predators accountable into territory that is actually illegal, or I guess allegedly illegal, as no charges have been filed yet.

As such, today's episode is going to be split into two parts. First, we're going to look at the crimes that have allegedly been revealed thanks to the release of the 3 and a half million documents, and then we'll look at the crimes that have allegedly been committed by the current administration in relation to the Epstein files. Okay, interesting. Interesting way of looking at it today. I look forward to it. I mean, I guess we can do all of that if you insist, Simon, but I don't even know why you wanted the script. The Dow right now is over 50,000, and that's what we should really be talking about.

That clip was insane. I don't remember quite who it was and what was going on, but there's that law maker being like, "No, no, no. We shouldn't be looking at the Epstein files. What we should be looking at is how cracking the economy is doing [snorts] because those two things are related. New crimes revealed."

Before we start, there are a couple of caveats that we do need to address. First, this is not a comprehensive list of the crimes alleged since the release of the Epstein files because we simply don't have that sort of time in this video. We're talking about nearly half a century of criminal activity all being revealed at once. According to a panel of experts from the UN Human Rights Council, the scale of the alleged crimes will most likely quote meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity. So, well, there's clearly a lot going on here. Yes, indeed. I had no idea that that was a thing.

There are also new allegations being uncovered every day. For example, while I was writing the script, the alleged rapist, formerly known as Prince Andrew, was arrested and interrogated for crimes unrelated to all the child sex stuff. We'll get to that shortly, but 3 and a half million pages is a lot for people to look over, so I expect there to have been breaking news between the writing and the release of this video.

The other caveat is that all of the things we're going to be talking about are purely allegations based on the evidence released. Nobody has been put on trial for anything yet, and nothing has been definitively proven. While the files that have received the most attention have all been primary source communications between parties allegedly involved in crimes, there's also a lot of stuff included that may be less credible. [snorts] Solid bit of ass covering at the beginning there, Kevin. Thank you. There's a lot of very powerful and wealthy people here. I'll try to remember to sprinkle enough allegedlys throughout this script, but this is just a blanket reminder that everything right now is just allegations and nobody has been convicted of anything yet. So, with that out of the way, it's a double ass covering or triple ass covering. Appreciate that.

With that out of the way, let's get into the alleged crimes. Starting with former Prince Andrew. Got a comma there nowadays. Former Prince Andrew, not Prince Andrew. On February the 19th, Andrew Mountbatton Windsor's 66th birthday, he was arrested and detained for 11 hours. Hell of a way to spend your 66th there, Andy. This was the first time a member of the British royal family had been arrested since 1647 when King Charles I was arrested. Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct while in public office, though at the time of writing, no charges have been filed.

As for the specifics of the misconduct that took place, the allegations are that Andrew sent Epstein confidential documents related to his work as the UK's trade envoy. Based on those emails, it looks like the main purpose of sharing these documents was to discuss financial investments, possibly some sort of insider trading. Isn't that the allegation that he's like, "Yeah, dude. Yo, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, mate, they're going to bail out Greece 500 Billy, my boy." [snorts] And Epstein's like, "Interesting. I wonder if I'll trade on that information, Andy, and cut you off a slice, allegedly. And by a slice, I mean a young lady, allegedly. By lady, I Oh, God.

Note that in the emails, it sounded like Andrew was of the belief that these financial dealings would be legal so long as the transactions were done using a trust that he didn't have direct access to. And that very well may be the case. Wait, what? You just get around insider trading by like, wait, that's insane. Surely that can't be the law. that it's like, okay, so let's say I know Bob. Bob has some inside information and he passes it to me and I'm like, well, that's interesting information, Bob. I could make a lot of money with that if it wasn't illegal. Well, I've happened to have this trust and be like, yo, director uh what's it called? A trustee of the trust. Yo, invest in this thing. All right, mate. And then they do it and that's all kosher. That that obviously can't be how it's done, surely. Or is this one of those like rich people have different rules things because regular people don't have trusts and so like can't do insider trading this way. But rich people all good.

But even if the financial stuff was legal, albeit extremely sketchy, public officials can't just go around sharing confidential documents with their business associates. Oh yes, and Andrew had also got an authorization for Epstein to land his private jet on Royal Air Force bases. Something that is also being looked at as potential corruption. >> [snorts] >> Well, yeah, because that def if that's true, that definitely seems like corruption allegedly in my opinion.

The only other people so far facing charges in relation to the Epstein files all come from Norway. Former prime minister of Norway Thor Bjorn Jagland was charged with aggravated corruption for his ties to Epstein. Aggravated corruption. Never heard that before. Many of their communications were about Russia with Epstein trying to get a meeting with Vladimir Putin. Though there currently isn't any evidence that such a meeting took place. Well, in our case, good guy Putin, right? Good guy. I don't think Putin gives a [ __ ] about this. He's just like conquest.

Epstein also asked Jaglin to pass a message to the Kremlin saying that they should reach out to Epstein if they needed any advice on how to best handle Trump, who was in his first term as president at the time. The other Norwegians currently facing charges are Ambassador Mona Juel and her husband Tier Rod Larson, a former diplomat. Juul was charged with aggravated corruption and Lson was charged with contribution to aggravated corruption. The charges and current investigation seemed to be focused on the couple receiving illegal gifts and benefits in relation to their positions.

Juel and Lson's names appear in the files dozens of times, including in an email from an investigative reporter working for the Norwegian Business Daily, Norway's largest and most influential financial newspaper. The paper had previously published reporting about Larsson's financial ties to Epstein, resulting in Larsson resigning as president of the International Peace Institute in New York. And the reporter had emailed someone requesting if he could ask them questions about Larsson. That [music] someone then forwarded the email to someone else who said, "I'll handle thanks." Unfortunately, who those are is unknown as the names are redacted. Interesting how those names are redacted, but sometimes the victim's names were not redacted as it did. Brilliant and thorough work there, government.

A lot of stuff revealed was already old news. Hence Larsson having resigned from his position years ago. But there did seem to be one new revelation. Shortly before, he definitely hanged himself. Epstein updated his will to leave $10 million to Juel and Larsen's children. That isn't suspicious at all and definitely doesn't suggest that the couple were much more involved with Epstein than they had led the public to believe. Unfortunately, the current investigation by Norwegian authorities is expected to be a lengthy process. So, God knows when we'll have any updates. Yeah. I mean, but this sort of complicated thing involving powerful politicians and this, you know, millions of documents is going to take some time. That's okay. Justice should take time. Otherwise, it's rushed and it shouldn't be rushed.

At this point though, I should mention that Juel and Larsson were both involved in facilitating the Oslo Accords, the mid 1990s agreements that served as the interim peace deals between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The close relation Epstein had with them is relevant in the context of other allegations made against Epstein. Pretty much for as long as the public had been aware of Epstein, there had been speculation that he was an intelligence asset. When he was originally arrested in 2008 for child sex trafficking, he received an unprecedentedly lenient sentence. Not only did he get to plead down to lesser charges and received only 16-month sentence, only 13 of which he served, he wasn't even in prison half the time. Epstein was granted work release privileges which allowed him to leave the prison for 12 hours a day, 6 days a week to go and work in his private office. Is again, this like is different for rich people, isn't it? It's just different. It was an insane deal.

And the fact that Epstein received little more than a slap on the wrist has led many to speculate that he was able to operate for so long because he was actually an intelligence asset running a government sanctioned honeypot. Epstein is usually linked to either the FBI or MSAD or both, though there have been claims that he worked for the Kremlin as well. The files don't explicitly confirm any of this speculation. But Epstein's close relation to individuals like Juel and Lson has only added fuel to the fire. It certainly doesn't help that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehoud Barak's name appears in the files thousands of times. The Israeli government even installed security equipment in a building managed by Epstein that was often used to house underage models. Many of the emails simply refer to the location as Aud's apartment. We could go down an endless rabbit hole discussing whether or not Epstein was an intelligence asset and investigating all of his ties to Israel, but that's really beyond the scope of this video. I figured it was worth at least mentioning though. I I I have a video all about that, whether Apstein was an intelligence asset on my home front's channel if you want to check it out after this. It's a lot more serious than this channel. Not that this this is a serious topic. I'm just not a serious guy.

Back to the alleged crimes and there's the matter of Bill Gates. The most startling details that were revealed regarding Gates didn't come from communications between the two men, but rather from an email that Epstein sent to himself. Since not all the files have been released yet, it's unclear whether or not a copy of this email was ever sent to Bill. [music] Regardless, that he would send himself at least seven drafts of the email. Says a lot given the content. Wait, I know he said seven drafts. I see. What are you doing? Why are you wasting your time? It's something about like he's upset with Bill and he's like, I know you know you got a disease from sleeping with some women or whatever on my island. Bill, I know. I know. Why would you draft this seven times? a to-do. Like I'm I I feel like I'm not as busy as like whoever the these important people are, but I'm still too busy to think about like petty emails to people.

The drafts appear to be written from the perspective of Boris Nichollet, a top adviser in [music] the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation. Boris was being fired from the foundation and so Epstein drafted what was essentially a blackmail letter. The letter alleged that Gates had cheated on his wife with Russian girls. contracted an STD and requested antibiotics for the infection, as well as directions on how he could slip them to Melinda without her knowing. The email also alleged that Gates had been asking Boris for Adderall prescriptions for his mistress for bridge tournaments. Now, a lot of people have speculated that Epstein was collecting information about people so that he could blackmail them. That made sense from the start, but these drafted emails show exactly how he may have gone about doing so. Yes. Okay, that's super interesting. It's just it's like dark power broking cuz he's like, "Okay, Boris doesn't want to get fired from his job at the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation." So he asks Epstein, "Yo, Jeff, need you to do me a favor. You got anything on Bill? I don't want him to fire me and I I I just don't want to get fired." And Epste's like, "Yeah, sure, Boris. I'll take care of it." No worries, my man. You got it. You're going to owe me, though. You're going to owe me big time.

Boris was apparently offered a 2-year severance package so long as he promised not to talk about any of those things that we just mentioned. In the email, Epstein essentially wrote, "If I was in your shoes, I'd be offering to buy me out of my investment for $30 million. That seems like the smart thing to do in this sort of situation and definitely how I would have handled it if I were you." Oh, and as for the relationship between Epstein and Boris, when Epstein died, his will appointed Darren Indk and Richard Khn as the executors of his estate. In 2009, both of these men were named as co-conspirators of Epstein by the FBI, though neither was ever charged with anything. But in the event they could have performed their duties, Boris was named as a backup executor. Boris rejected the position and claimed not to know why he was named, but clearly Epstein thought they were quite close. Yeah, dude. You got to be [laughter] what the I don't even know the guy. Why would he choose me as the executor of his will? Quite an important thing.

That brings us to Donald Trump, who claims that he has been totally exonerated by the release of the files. I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion, though, as there are a lot of allegations against Trump of sex crimes and other crimes in the files. The one that's been getting the most attention in the report is of a limo driver from Texas. A man called the FBI tip line in 2020 to report that he was a private limo driver in the Dallas Fort Worth area back in the '90s. He claimed to have [music] picked up Trump in 1995 and driven him to the airport during which time he overheard Trump making a phone call. Although the limo driver didn't know who Trump was talking to or what about, he claimed that Trump said the name Jeffrey many times and that he talked about abusing some girl. According to the driver, the details of the conversation were so disturbing that he was a few seconds from pulling the limousine over on the median, pulling him out of the car, and hurting him.

But this wasn't the only information the driver claimed to have. Allegedly, his stepdaughter was a victim of Trump and Epstein's. During a vacation to New York, she had allegedly been admiring Trump Tower when Gelain Maxwell invited her inside. There, Trump and Epste allegedly sexually assaulted her. The driver found out about this after telling his stepdaughter about his own interaction with Trump, at which point he urged her to call the police. This does sound a little bit far-fetched, like what are the odds that your daughter happened to be uh poached? What's the right word? targeted, groomed by Maxwell while she was just happened to be outside Trump Tower and then you just happened to be driving Trump around in a limo. It just doesn't it that seems extraordinarily unlikely and obviously unlikely things do happen, but I'm going to need some evidence, mate.

But she was too afraid, believing they would kill her if she did. Eventually, the girl did contact the police and she was found dead in January of 2000. The police found her dead from a gunshot wound to the back of her head and said it was murder. Though the coroner ruled it a suicide shot up in the back of the head. Next going to be like shots up in the back of the head twice [gasps] and then disposed of her own body. There's a lot there and it does raise a lot of questions. If the driver was insistent on his stepdaughter talking to the police, why did he wait another 20 years before contacting the FBI himself? Oh yeah, I completely missed that. That's a great point, Kev. I mean, I guess if he thought that Epstein and his associates had murdered his stepdaughter, that would be reason not to. But still, unfortunately, the bigger question of is any of this true has yet to be answered. As far as anyone could tell, the FBI never looked into these claims or interviewed the driver. Yeah, cuz the FBI probably You got anything to back that up, mate? It's just just a I mean, even if it's real, you're going to need something to back it up because otherwise, we're going to think it's a story, mate.

What we can say for sure is that the man really was a limo driver. He did marry the mother of the girl in question, though they've since divorced. The girl died in 2000 in an apparent murder. The death was ruled a suicide, and the medical examiner involved has since lost his accreditation for, among other things, shoddy reporting and insufficient examinations. Dude, well, it's also common knowledge that limo drivers and private drivers for highowered highowered individuals overhear all sorts of things, though discretion is generally considered part of their job, which is crazy. I mean, it's not like there's a confidentiality relationship with youring limo driver. I'm not important and not particularly famous, but I'll still like watch mying mouth when I'm around when people like I've been in situations where I mean talking to my friends like especially like in the early days and it was a bit like you know didn't realize there'd be people who knew who I was and you sitting in a restaurant having a chat with your mate talking about all sorts of I don't know and then the person's like sitting next to you be like mate just want to say love [music] your stuff and it's a you just been listening to my conversation for the last like 2 Oh, as well just for talking to my mate, haven't you? And it's I'm sure I didn't say anything stupid, but still, you just I don't know. What the would you Why the would you have a conversation like that in a limo when someone else is in earshot? It's bizarre to me.

Those elements of the story are all true, and that lends credibility to the report. Though, there's currently no way to know whether or not any of the stuff involving Trump and Epstein is true or a fabrication.

There was also an allegation from a New Mexico woman that she was trafficked by Epste and her uncle when she was 13 years old and pregnant. I assume the pregnancy was the result of the trafficking, though it wasn't stated. In her statements, she said that Trump was present on a yacht in Lake Michigan in either April or May of 1984 when her uncle murdered her newborn baby and dumped it in the lake. [ __ ] hell. I'm going to again, it's like you're going to need some evidence of this, otherwise it's just a crazy like extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, and all that. She accused Trump of being a regular participant in her sexual abuse, but she did not claim he had any part in her baby's murder other than being present for it, which I'd say is a pretty big part when someone's murdering a baby. Jesus.

This is an interesting claim. As if true, it would mean that Epstein and Trump knew each other a few years longer than had previously been known. Something that helps make this testimony more believable is that it's mainly about sex trafficking and infanticide at the hands of her uncle and Epstein rather than being all about Trump. Although he was specifically named in the file, the alleged victim claimed to have information about multiple high-profile perpetrators in the sex trafficking ring. Information that she claimed to have passed on to the NYPD and an FBI task force. The letter in question was actually a follow-up to that as she was trying to get back into contact with the detective that she spoke to.

The biggest question that I have about this story is why Trump would have been at Lake Michigan as he was heavily involved in Atlantic City at the time. This was actually right around the time that the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino first opened. come really close to finding an answer. Though it didn't quite work out. Trump owned the New Jersey Generals, a team in the short-lived United States Football League that was created to compete with the NFL. Spoiler alert, didn't work. As the team owner and a vocal advocate of the league switching from a spring to a fall schedule to more directly compete with the NFL, it makes sense that Trump would have attended his team's games. On April the 24th, 1984, the New Jersey Generals had a game against the Michigan Panthers. But this game was in Jersey, not Michigan. That doesn't mean that Trump couldn't have visited Lake Michigan around that time for some other reason. I just have no idea what that reason would have been. It's still the sort of thing that should be investigated though, as these were very specific allegations that included murder. I I get the thing should be investigated, but there is a limited amount of time. And this like I I don't know. I don't know. Look, don't be upset, but it just feels like this is a it's one of those things where I'm like this is so insane that I can't believe it. But maybe I'm wrong. I maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems insane. If it's true, it's so insane.

Next is another man who has been named as one of Epstein's co-conspirators in child sex trafficking. Sultan Akhmed bins. If you haven't been following the Epstein files closely, this is a name that you probably haven't heard of before. Binsulam was the chairman of chairman and CEO of DP World, a Dubai based logistics company, as well as the chairman of the ports, Customs, and Freezone Corporation. In addition to a number of business dealings, including what appears to be Epstein requesting that Lord Mandlesson, who was the UK's business secretary at the time, helped to facilitate a contract with DP World, the two, of course, talked about women a lot. Though he's not been arrested or charged with anything yet, Mandlesson resigned his positions following accusations that much like Andrew, he'd been siphoning classified information to Epstein.

Anyway, Binsmam arranged Repstein's private masseuse to travel to a Turkish hotel where she would be trained in all the treatments. Quote, there are also a lot of emails that seem to heavily suggest Epstein was trafficking girls directly to bins. One email read, "By the way, the Ukrainian Muldoven arrived. Big disappointment. The Moldovven is not as attractive as the picture, while the Ukrainian is very beautiful. That's creepy, dude." There are thousands of emails between Epste and Ben Sullivan, including Epstein saying, "You are one of my most trusted friends in every sense of the word." Bins thanked his friend, then said he was off to sample a 100% female Russian on his yacht. That's gross, dude.

But beyond just the run-of-the-mill sex trafficking that everyone knew would be in the files, there was something potentially even more disturbing in the interactions between Epstein and Binselia. In April of 2009, Epstein sent an email that read, "Where are you? Are you okay? I loved the torture video." Now, what is that? Despite the obvious implications and how it is often reported, that probably wasn't actually about torturing girls. That's not to say that the girls Epstein was trafficking weren't being tortured, just that it's not what this particular email that has received a lot of attention was about. Dimma was sent 2 days after ABC read an exclusive story about the torture tape that had been smuggled out of the UAE. One that showed police and a member of the royal family brutally torturing a man possibly over a business deal. Based on the timing, I think it's fair to assume that that was the torture video being referenced. Why the would you say I love the torture video, you sick? [snorts] Like you could be a demon. Like FC's clearly a demon. Why do you all have to be like I also love love torture? It's like you're just trying to be as demonic as possible, you douche.

There are far too many people mentioned in the Epstein files to talk about everyone in one video. So, the last person I want to bring up is Les Wexner. Wexner is a billionaire businessman from Ohio famous for co-founding Bath and Body Works as well as for purchasing Victoria's Secret and Abocrombian Fitch. He's also the single person most responsible for transforming Epstein from a college dropout with a fake resume into a staple fixture of elite circles. Wexner hired Epstein in 1987 as his financial manager and was Epstein's primary client for the next 20 years. Within a few years of being hired, Wexner gave Epstein power of attorney, allowing him to perform any and all financial transactions on his behalf. He was also described as being Epstein's closest friend.

Over the years, Epstein was paid several hundreds of millions of dollars, though Wexner has claimed that money was stolen from him. How someone could be robbed of that much money without noticing is beyond me, but maybe billionaires just don't pay attention to their finances. Yeah, look, I'm not a billionaire, but [music] I don't pay that much attention to my finances. Like, I just It's just I don't know. I got other going on. And there's a point where you're like, "Yeah, well, I just have someone else who handles that for me now, which is really nice. It's really nice." But it does make you more like susceptible to being conned, for sure. But also, if someone cons me of an amount of money that is a lot, then I'll be like, "Brah, what's that?"

Of course, Wexner was only worth $1.7 billion in 2007. So, the amount of money Epstein was either paid or misappropriated was a substantial portion of Wexner's net worth. Yeah, but I mean, it happened over many, many, many years for sure. Even if he paid people to handle his money, I'd like to think that it's the sort of thing that would it have still been personally aware of. I genuinely think it could not he could not be. I just think he could not be. I think that's entirely reasonable.

Although there do not seem to be any allegations that Wexner was personally involved in sexual abuse, the document suggests that he certainly facilitated it. Epstein used his association with Wexner and his position of authority to pose as a recruiter for Victoria Secret as a way to obtain girls. There are also documents concerning an event that allegedly took place at Wexner's home in 1996. Then 26-year-old Maria Farmer had been hired to work as an artist in residence at Wexner's home in Ohio. While she was there, Epstein and Maxwell allegedly sexually assaulted her. Maria claimed that Wexner security then effectively held her hostage, refusing to let her leave the property for at least 12 hours following the assault. She also claimed that Epstein stole photos she kept of her 12 and 16year-old sisters. These photos, which sound like they were under lock and key, contained anatomically revealing images of her sisters that were used for artistic reference. How about you don't do that? It's weird.

Maria claimed that Epstein stole both the photos and the negatives. I mean, look, don't get me wrong, that's more weird, but like one's a little bit weird and then one's like sick, which she believed was for the purpose of selling them. She also claimed that Epstein threatened to burn down a house if she ever told anyone. I'll make a joke about how charming that makes Epstein sound, but it doesn't seem like anyone is actually suggesting that he was charming in any way. While statements from victims suggest that other accused perpetrators like Trump were quite charismatic in person, the consensus seemed to be that Epstein was borish and unlikable. You know, unless you were a billionaire pedophile that wanted exactly what Epstein was selling. Needless to say, Oaxner has denied any allegations and he claims that he had no idea what was going on.

There's just one thing about that, though. A lot of the documents in the files contain claims that were made to the FBI in 2020 after they created a tip line following Epstein's death. But the documents show that Maria's claims were made in September of 1996. She was actually the first victim to provide a criminal complaint against Epstein to the NYPD and FBI. Obviously, details of ongoing investigations aren't shared with the public. But it's unlikely that Wexner would have become aware of the allegations. After all, because they had such a close business relationship and personal friendship, it only makes sense that authorities would have wanted to interview Wexner to find out what he knew. And yet he continued to keep Epstein on his payroll for another decade.

Beyond individuals involved though, the Epstein files revealed more details of the inner workings of the organization potentially. Anyway, again, there's nothing explicit, but there are some very obvious inferences that can be drawn. I guess there's one thing that's explicit, which is an audio recording of one of Epstein's employees on his island saying, "Kill them and dispose of the bodies." Holy. But this has been blown way out of proportion in the full audio clip. Okay. Okay. It's clear that they're talking about deer. Oh, thank God. Like as Yeah, that I'm glad they're talking about deer. Jesus. Deer were brought to the US Virgin Islands hundreds of years ago, a place where they have no natural predators. So, they're considered an invasive species on the island. They also have been known to swim from one island to another. I didn't even know deer could swim. There are emails in the files where they were looking into deer fencing and deer repellent. So, this seems pretty open and shut. I know the clip taken out of context is among the more extreme things in the files, which is certainly saying a lot given the other content, but I guess this should serve as a reminder that not everything is some sort of secret code and sometimes a deer is really just a deer. Yes. And I think by looking at stuff like that and parading that around, you take away from all of the truly real and horrific that actually happens. It it cheapens the rest of it. When you when you pull out something like that and be like, "Oh my god, dispose of the bodies. What aing animal. We should look into him for murder." It's like, "Stop it. There's there's there's enough here. There's Let's just focus on the real because the real bad enough."

All right. That said, there was a reference to some plants Epstein had. In one email, he asked someone to check on the trumpet plants in his nursery. There are a few different plants this could refer to, but it's almost certainly referring to Angel's trumpets. There's an article about the effects of Angel's trumpets were also found in Epstein's emails. Angel's trumpet produces a drug called Scopolamine. Isn't this the truth serum one? The one that makes you very pliable. That would make sense. Epste's like, I just really like how they look, guys. They're beautiful, beautiful trumpets. I definitely wouldn't use them to drug people, which is what the article in question was about. And also almost certainly the reason Epstein would have had these plants. At low doses, the drug has medical applications treating motion sickness and nausea. But at high doses, the drug earns its nickname, Devil's Breath, because of its alleged mind control properties. High doses of Scopolamine produce a hallucinogenic effect. But the terrifying kind, not the fun kind. Oh, okay. Uh, sorry. I thought this was the truth serum one. I have I made I feel like I made a video about this on Into the Shadows, another channel that I do. More importantly, it causes total memory loss and leaves the user in a drum zombie-like state where they will follow instructions absolutely. According to the article that was forwarded to Epstein, quote, "You can guide them wherever you want. It's like they're a child." Although there's a lot of evidence of Epstein and his associates using threats and coercive measures to force compliance from their victims, there are no specific references to the use of scopolamine in drugging victims into compliance. It's quite possible that it never came to that because their other methods were already effective enough, but it's hardly outside the realm of possibility that Epstein was growing Angel's trumpet for this specific purpose. Yeah. No, I don't think he's even if he liked he's not he's not liking it enough to be like, "Bro, can you check my plants? Just make sure they're okay." [snorts] Doesn't seem like the sort of guy Epstein is.

Although the three people from Norway thus far are the only ones to face any charges in connection with the release of the Epstein files, there's still been some level of accountability all across the world. I already mentioned how the former Prince Andrew was arrested and interviewed, though he's yet to be charged. He also has obviously been stripped of his title. Yeah, also that the DP World guy, it's like I'm gonna go and enjoy I'm gonna assemble 100% Russian woman. Weird ass weirdo. I bet you look weird as well.

Many people in high-ranking positions across the globe have resigned due to their connections to Epstein, with one notable exception. Almost none of this is happening in the United States, with the only resignations coming from heads of international companies like Hart Hotels. In Trump's first term, Secretary of Labor Alex Aosta resigned following the 2019 arrest of Epstein because people found out he was the one that cut Epstein that ridiculous deal back in 2008. That guy.

But even though the current administration is both full of people connected to Epstein and people who bungled the handling of this case and the release of the documents, there has been absolutely no accountability, the United States has seen no charges, no investigations, and almost no resignations related to the release of these files. Instead, we've seen something that I can't even begin to understand. While the rest of the world is outraged by Epstein and his co-conspirators, the US, particularly right-wing political pundits, have been making excuses. There is evidence that the victims were as young as 11. Yet, these talking heads seem outraged at the fact that people refer to the victims as children. Bruh, wake the up. The new narrative has been that Epstein and his friends liked barely legal types, which they then described as being girls who are 14 or 15. Bro, like in America, that is not even close to the legal age of 18, is it? Think about that for a second before you open your stupid mouths. Just so there's no confusion, 14 or 15 is not barely legal. It is fully illegal. Sure, some of Epstein's victims were of legal age, but it turns out that human trafficking is still illegal, no matter how old the person is, just in case you didn't know. And after years of QAnon and this far-right movement dedicated to purging the deep state of satanic pedophilic cannibals, it's mind-blowing to see the same side of the aisle become complete apologists for deep state pedophiles. Yeah, what's going on? Why? Why?

But hey, right-wing commentators like Megan Kelly and Nick Fuentes don't speak for the administration. Surely the actual administration that's in power will take the innumerable crimes committed by Epstein and his co-conspirator seriously. Right. Please.

Crimes allegedly committed in the coverup. On November the 19th, 2025, President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law. Not like he had any choice. The House of Representatives voted to pass the bill 427 to1 with five abstensions and the Senate passed the bill unanimously. So in all of Congress, Republican Representative Klay Higgins from Louisiana was the only person to vote against the bill. Even if Trump had vetoed it, there were more than enough votes to override the veto. Of course, many people believed that Trump had wanted to release the files all along, arguing that he campaigned on doing so. That's not really the case, though. People point to an interview from Fox and Friends where Trump was asked about declassifying documents. Without hesitation, he said to declassify the 9/11 files and the JFK files. But when asked about Epstein, he paused before saying yes. The S was then qualified with a lot of waffling about how stuff in the files might be fake and ruin people's lives. So, he wasn't sure about declassifying those ones, but everyone seemed to forget all of that.

After he was elected, it was clear early on that the Trump administration had no intention of releasing the files. Attorney General Pam Bondi originally held a press conference in which she claimed that Epstein's client [music] list was on her desk only to later state that there was no list. Weird like what what what FBI director Cash Patel also claimed that there was no client list and that there was no credible evidence that Epstein trafficked victims to other people. Bro, uh millions of emails might beg to differ with that, my friend. which seeing as there were over a thousand victims is a [ __ ] wild claim to make. Allegedly, Trump also spent months referring to Epstein as a Democratic hoax, claiming that the files were all fabricated by previous Democratic administrations. Why an administration would create millions of fake files with no intention of releasing them is beyond me, though. The point is that despite claims to the contrary, Trump and his administration never actually wanted these files released.

This became evident last December as the Epstein Transparency Act had given the administration 30 days to release the files. When that 30-day deadline was up, nothing was released. Failure to release the files was a violation of the newly passed law, though the bill hadn't actually laid out any penalties for non-compliance. Whoops, Daisy. Maybe you should have got a lawyer to look over it, which was a huge oversight because failure to comply was the most predictable outcome. It could result in contempt of Congress or obstruction charges, but good luck with that for reasons that we'll get into in a moment.

Once the files were released, it was still done in violation of the law. Instead of all the files being released at once, it was only a partial release. Even now, with the release of 3 and a half million documents, that still isn't everything. Originally, it was claimed that this was half the files, but newer reporting claims that only 2% of the files have been released so far. Who has such a massive footprint? There's so many files. As far as I can tell, that claim originates from an anonymous source on 4chan. So, God knows how reliable that claim is. I It seems like that seems a bit of a stretch, doesn't it? And also, we shouldn't be using 4chan as a reference.

Anyway, the Epstein Transparency Act also required that all of the documents be unredacted except to protect the names and identities of victims or if the content contains child sexual abuse materials. I would thought that last part would have gone without saying, but I was extraordinarily wrong. Like, how did the lawyer include

That, but not include punishment for non-compliance? I feel like if I sent that to my lawyer, it'd be like, "Yeah, you're going to need like an enforcement clause." Like, obviously, you put ChatGPT and it would tell you.

There have been non-stop calls by a large segment of the population to release all the videos included in the files, which is insane. It is insane. That is insane. [snorts] That's obviously insane. And if you're asking for that, you should be able to sort of list. This was an investigation into a child sex trafficking ring with hidden cameras allegedly used for blackmail. So, we all know what the videos would be, and there's no shot that stuff would ever be released. Those videos would obviously be a smoking gun for an investigation. But there's no reason they'd ever be released to the public. That's the sort of stuff that only a jury would ever be forced to watch. Yeah, exactly. That's exactly how it should be. Even a jury. I feel like there should just be some sort of sacrificial person who has to watch it and then write down in detail what happened so that regular people don't have to see it on a jury because watching that regardless.

That sort of illegal content along with victim's names and identifying information were the only things that were supposed to be redacted. The law clearly stated, "No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary." Yeah. And this passed in Congress by how much? Like 400 and something to one. Guys, this is massively popular. Bipartisan support across the board. The Senate was like, everyone was like, "Yeah, release that." Obviously, protect the victims, but release it all. Every redaction was also supposed to contain an explanation of what was redacted and why. It's an awful lot of work. Needless to say, that's not what happened.

The first batch of files released contained page after page that was fully redacted. There were highly incriminating emails discussing illegal activity. Yet, the sender's name would be redacted. In fact, it seemed that the majority of the redactions were being used to protect potential co-conspirators rather than the victims. The release of the three and a half million files was no better with countless redactions done in violation of the law. Even worse, they failed to redact victim names. There was one email released that was a list of all the victim's names that were supposed to be redacted from the files. That's [expletive] spectacular. What are you doing? This list contained dozens of names, but only a single one was redacted. Wait, so it's not like they even missed [laughter] it? Honestly though, that's even worse than if none had been. Yeah, because it's like they paid attention. If nothing was redacted, you could argue that the FBI and DOJ were grossly incompetent. It's not like that argument is really a stretch. However, to have one name redacted showed that somebody saw this email containing a list of previously unnamed victims, the absolute worst thing that could possibly be released to the public, and they made the active decision to only redact one of those names. It's incompetence to an extraordinarily odd degree. This was horrible for the victims, some of whom reportedly had never told anyone about what happened to them as kids and now had to talk to their families about it for the first time. It was the exact sort of thing that was not supposed to happen.

But the administr Jesus Christ, I would you got to who lawyers out there, I assume you're already working on a class action lawsuit, right? Cuz you're going to get paid to get these people some money cuz holy because the administration was too busy violating the law to protect all the co-conspirators to actually give a [expletive] about what they were doing to any of the victims allegedly.

But the alleged crimes went beyond violations of the Epstein Transparency Act which didn't contain any specific penalties. There was also all of the lying. I know what you're thinking, Simon, just because you said in a previous video of a hard nutnick, lying isn't a crime. And that's true. Lying isn't a crime. For example, Elon Musk stated multiple times that Epstein had asked him to come hang out on the island, but that he vehemently refused. We now know from the files that this isn't the case, and Elon was practically begging to go to the islands. "Please, Jeff, I want to come to the island." Elon sent numerous emails trying to arrange visits asking in November of 2012 when the wildest party on the island would be. Note that this was after Epstein had already been convicted and imprisoned for soliciting prostitution for a minor, and he was a registered sex offender. Elon would have known exactly who Epstein was and what kind of party he was asking to attend. That said, the emails don't indicate that Elon ever made it to the island due to logistical issues, just that he really, really, really wanted to go. Like I said, though, the lies Elon told were not a crime.

Compare that to say Howard Lutnik, who very well may have committed a crime. In an interview last year, Lutnik claimed to have met Epstein once and never again, giving an overly detailed story about how disgusted he was. The release of the files showed that his previous statement was a lie, but that's fine. I mean, it's not fine, but it's not illegal. Yeah, I think that's what I was saying in the in the video. And then I think people were saying like lying in the Senate or wherever he was in court or whatever is a crime. I'm like, yeah, well, that's a crime. It's called perjury. However, when he was pulled before the Senate for a hearing, Lutnik may have lied again. May have lied again. Okay. And I guess that's a crime that this in front of the Senate. I think he was pressed on the relationship and his previous deceitful statements. And during the hearing, Lutnik claimed that the two men did not have any sort of relationship and that he only met Epstein on two more occasions after initially becoming neighbors in 2005. But the details of the Epstein files and other publicly available documents seem to contradict this statement. To be clear, nothing in the files provides evidence that Lutnik was involved in anything sexual or that the two were the bestest of friends, but they certainly seem to have more interactions than Lutnik's testimony would lead us to believe. In addition to having multiple meetings together, Epstein had both Lutnik and his wife's phone numbers, and there appeared to be an understanding that they and Epstein were free to call each other anytime.

[music] Well, yeah, they are neighbors, though, like I would have my neighbors phone numbers. But I'm not friends with them. They're just my neighbors. If it's like if their house is burning down, I need to give them a ring. Personally, I also find it interesting that all of the communications between Lutnik and Epstein that were revealed in the files happened starting in 2009. Note that this would have been after Epstein was already a registered sex offender, something that Lutnik would almost certainly have been aware of. Although the state of New York does not require sex offenders to personally go door-to-door informing their neighbors, the police may inform communities about an offender's presence. Because Epstein was a level three sex offender, it's likely this may have happened. Even if the police hadn't done so, that's the sort of news that travels extremely quickly.

In addition to their email and presumably phone conversations, Lutnik and Epstein had business dealings as well. They invested in some of the same companies with Epstein forwarding an article to Lutnik about a business opportunity that was particularly up his alley. Then there was the fact that they were neighbors and I'm not talking about in New York where they first met. In 2014, Lutnik bought a house in Palm Beach where he was once again neighbors with Epstein. On the basis of probability, which do you think is more likely: that Lutnik purchased a second home next to Epstein by sheer coincidence, or the two were much closer than Lutnik claimed in his testimony? I I don't think it's that cut and dry, to be honest. I think the number of people who are buying properties in this area or this part of New York and Palm Beach in that area uh like the 1% of the 1% of the 1% these are a very small group of people who could afford this stuff. One of the files from 2017 also showed a third party referred to Lutnik as Epstein's good friend. So there seems to have been at least a perception in certain social circles that the two were more than just neighbors and passing acquaintances who happened to meet on exactly three occasions over 14 years. Yeah, that seems to me that's even even that that's a lot more strong than the house thing. Way more strong.

Admittedly, I'm not sure there's enough there to hold up in court. I believe that the preponderance of evidence suggests that Lutnik was lying to Congress about the extent of his relationship with Epstein, but I don't think it's anywhere close to beyond a reasonable doubt. At least not yet. But apparently there are millions more documents that have yet to be released. So it's a possibility that there will be more definitive proof revealed later. Of course, since they were neighbors, they had each other's phone numbers. I would expect that the vast majority of their correspondence not to have taken place by email. So maybe there's nothing else about their relationship in the unreleased files. Yeah. Well, I guess we'll see. Will we see? When are they releasing those other files? Come on, get on. I want to make more content about them.

So why does this matter? So, what if he lied about being friends with Epstein? Well, it turns out you can't lie to Congress, especially while under oath. But even if you're not, oh, there you go. Lying in the Senate is a serious felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. To give an idea of just how serious this crime is, let's use illegal immigration as a comparison. Overstaying a visa isn't even a crime. It's a civil infraction, like a speeding ticket. Is that true? Wow. Entering the country illegally the first time, is a misdemeanor. The government recently waged war against Minneapolis and killed innocent American citizens in an effort to find people who committed those infractions. And from a legal standpoint, lying to Congress is way worse than what people they were hunting did. Yeah. No. And also, I have no idea like overstaying a visa isn't technically illegal. It's a civil infraction. How about that?

And Lutnik isn't the only one to have potentially lied to Congress while under oath. We could debate whether or not he was lying, but the far more brazen lie came from Pam Bondi's testimony before the House of Representatives. If anyone didn't see Bondi's testimony before Congress, it was embarrassing. Is she the Is she the economy woman? She has like the econ look at the Dow. Bam. You douche allegedly. Rather than answering any of the questions, she kept going on wild tangents that had nothing to do with Epstein. Yes, this has got to be it, right? Bondi's team had prepared a booklet for her containing information about each representative and their district so that whenever someone asked her a question, she could instead ask them about some illegal immigrants that had been arrested in their district for a violent crime. Um, that is weak. You know, people are going to see through that. This isn't like high school debate club. The DOJ had given representatives special logins to search at least some of the unredacted Epstein files, many of which revealed a second layer of redaction. And Bondi's booklet also had a list of exactly what each representative had searched for. I'm sure having everyone's search history wasn't illegal, but it does feel inappropriate. Yeah, those people are like important people who are this should be private. What the thing is though, this sort of deflection and whataboutism doesn't actually work for most people. Yeah, Trump is inexplicably able to get away with that sort of nonsense all the time. But Bondi shouldn't have expected the same tactics to work for her. It doesn't. It's insane to me that it works for Trump. I don't understand how people are just like, "Oh, yeah." You know, it's like just it just keeps rambling on and people are like, "Hey, I guess they just give up or something."

Whenever a representative asked a very specific question of Bondi, usually a yes or no question, she'd respond by bringing up the name of some illegal immigrant that was arrested in their district. But so what? She was obviously just trying to change the subject away from Epstein and onto how each of these representative districts was becoming a dangerous and violent hellhole thanks to illegal immigrants, but all of the names of people she listed were already behind bars. Almost as if law enforcement in those districts was doing their job. That sort of fearmongering also ignores all of the research that shows that illegal immigrants commit crimes at much lower rates than American citizens. Probably because they want to stay out of trouble to avoid deportation. Yeah, look, the drunk guy doesn't speed. It's, you know, that's the the im the illegal immigrant doesn't draw attention to themselves most of the time. Obviously, exceptions, but they don't want to because they'll be like, "Okay, I need your ID." And they'll be like, "What? ID? Here's my ID." And it just says Colombia on the top. [snorts]

Regardless, this barrage of non-answers and deflections from Bondi was a national embarrassment, culminating with her most viral interaction of the affair when she was asked very directly how many of Epstein's co-conspirators had been charged and how many were under investigation. She refused to answer. Instead, she went on a wild rant about previous attorney general, about how Trump was the most transparent president ever, as evidenced by all the redactions, and how the DA and also not releasing millions of files that were demanded to be released. And how the D What's the D? Oh, DAO. Wait, is the DAO all cabs? Isn't it normally D O W's? D small O small W. Dow Jones. Wait, I don't want to sound really dumb, like pronouncing the WHO as the who. Yeah, small O and small W. Okay, good. Which Americans should really be talking about instead of Epstein, because who cares if there's absolutely no accountability for the pedophilic ruling class so long as the stock market is making billionaires even richer? Yeah, dude. On regular people don't care about the stock market. Like uh middle class, below middle class. I mean, what does it how does it affect your life until it all goes horribly wrong and you lose your job? You're not like worrying about pensions. You're worrying about feeding people. You're worried about your next paycheck. Like until I had money, I didn't give a the stock market was up to. Why would I? And the fact that the Venn diagram of those two groups of people is practically a circle is entirely immaterial.

As humiliating for our nation as Bondi's testimony was, though, making an ass isn't a crime. But what almost certainly was a crime was an answer to a question from Representative Ted Lou. Something that he called out in the moment. After showing a video of Trump and Epstein talking to one another at a party together, the same video you've probably all seen a thousand times indeed. Lou asked if there were any underage girls at the party or at any party that Trump attended with Epstein. Bondi replied, "There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that." Unfortunately for Bondi, that statement is patently untrue. Wait, yeah, isn't he a convicted federal criminal for something that just in the in the time when he wasn't president? Currently forgot what he did. She's not intentionally lying there. She's just it's in the context of this, right? She thinks it's just in the context of this. Lou immediately responded by asserting that he believed Bondi had just lied under oath. And after she yelled in protestation, he repeated the allegation and the fact that it was all on camera. The important thing is that her statement was unquestionably false because there's a ton of evidence that Trump committed a crime. Trump's name appears in the Epstein files thousands of times, more times than Jesus' name appears in the Bible. There are a lot of allegations of heinous, some of which we've already talked about.

This is the I I hear this bantered around a lot. Like this person's name appears more in the in the Epstein files more than I think the one I saw was Harry Potter in the Harry Potter books. And it's like, yeah, bro, but the Harry Potter books are not millions of pages long. They're a few thousand. If it was pro rata Trump or um Trump in these things, then it'd be a bigger deal. But do you know what we call the Epstein files? Evidence. So if the files which are evidence contain allegations and reports of Trump engaging in illegal activity, then by definition there is evidence that he committed a crime. Of course, not all evidence is created equal. The report from the limo driver that we discussed earlier was a secondhand account of alleged crimes, not a firsthand account, something that was noted in internal communications. There's also a lot of debate online about whether or not the limo driver is a crackpot. It's possible that the evidence against Trump isn't credible, but that's not what Bondi said. She said there was no evidence at all, which is obviously untrue. I I think Okay. Yes. It's It's obviously untrue. Did she Did she li It's It's not like she's lying to cover something up. She's lying because she's dumb or like just misspeaks. Like doesn't think about just has a terrible strategy. The difference between saying there's no evidence and no credible evidence may seem like a minor semantic distinction, but that's the sort of that lawyers live for. And seeing as Bondi worked as a pro Oh, no. She didn't. She was a prosecutor. She was She's actually a lawyer before becoming the Florida Attorney General and now US. I forgot she was the attorney general. Oh god, Bam. What are you doing? [snorts] She should have been well aware of that difference. [laughter] In my opinion, and seemingly in the opinion of every lawyer with an internet connection, Bondi's statement meets the legal definition of perjury. Yeah, look, if you're a regular person and you say that, I think you should be given some slack. But you're the attorney general of the United States. You know better.

And this brings us back to the wild claim made by FBI director Cash Patel that there was no credible evidence that Epstein trafficked women to anybody other than himself. This interaction happened in a Senate hearing where Patel was under oath, though it was before the release of the files. Although he had the sense to use the phrase "no credible evidence," newly released documents still call his statement into question. When Epstein was originally charged back in 2008, his non-prosecution agreement extended not only to him, but also to his alleged co-conspirators. The names of some of these alleged co-conspirators have been revealed, and among them was French modeling agent Jean Luc Brunell. Brunell died in a French prison in 2022 from an apparent suicide while he was awaiting trial. Would you venture a guess as to what crime he'd been charged with? That's right, sexual assault of a minor. No, never. I thought it was going to be for fraud.

Admittedly, that does not necessarily mean that the evidence the FBI had linking Brunell to Epstein's child sex trafficking ring was credible. It could be a total coincidence that Brunell was named as a co-conspirator in the Epstein case based off of unverifiable evidence and that he just happened to be charged with child sex crimes 12 years later. And because that theoretically could be a coincidence, Patel's statement may not meet the legal threshold perjury. He did make another statement though in that hearing, one that seems like it should be a lot more black and white. A senator was pressing Patel on how many times Trump's name appeared in the Epstein files. But Patel refused to give an answer, saying that he didn't know. But when it was suggested that the number may be over a thousand, Patel definitively stated that it was not over 500 or even over a hundred times. I don't want to say anything right now, but that feels like a pretty straight-up lie in my opinion. Allegedly, we know for a fact that those statements are all false, as Donald Trump's full name appears well over a thousand times with thousands of other references to President Trump or just Trump.

Once again, though, this circumstance may not be actionable. After claiming that Trump's name definitely wasn't in the files over a 100 times, Patel was again asked what the number was. Again, he claimed not to know. Between indicating that he didn't know the exact number and at one point admitting that he hadn't read all the files, he could certainly argue that he didn't know the statement he was making was false. I personally find that idea to be bull. Don't believe for a second that he didn't know. But perjury could be a tricky thing to prove. And that brings us to the sad reality that none of these people are likely to face any consequences for their actions. And not just because it's difficult to get a conviction for perjury. You see, unfortunately, the United States has a little thing called separation of powers. First I said someone was like [expletive] unfortunate that we have separation of powers, right? Every dictator in Africa is like, "Separation of powers? Who needs it?" Don't get me wrong, that's usually a good thing and I'm not advocating for the consolidation of power. It's just in this particular case where it's bad. You see the legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws and the executive branch is responsible for enforcing them. And for anyone unaware, the executive branch includes the FBI, CIA, and pretty much all of those three-letter agencies. And most notably, it includes the DOJ as they are the ones that would prosecute those cases. If the DOJ were motivated enough, they could certainly try to charge Bondi, Patel, and potentially even Lutnik for perjury. But I think it's fair to assume that Bondi isn't going to be at all motivated to put herself on trial. Little bit of a conflict of interest there, isn't there? Similarly, this is why we're unlikely to see anyone actually charged with contempt of Congress or obstruction of justice. Sure, Congress could absolutely vote to hold Pam Bondi and the entire Department of Justice in contempt for their violations of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Yeah, I I think maybe you should have a vote on that, guys. If the vote passed, the matter would then be referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution. I don't think it takes a genius to realize that the DOJ would not prosecute itself. You need to work something out, America, because this is a this is a loophole. You need to work it out to close the loophole. The system of checks and balances generally works fine. Doesn't seem like it's working fine, does it? But it's not well equipped to handle when the executive branch are the ones committing crimes. Did we have figured this out with um Watergate?

There is a means by which the judicial branch could get involved in the prosecution, though this seems equally unlikely. As far as Pam Bondi and the DOJ are concerned, the Epstein case is now closed. There are no new prosecutions and she released a letter to Congress claiming that they have complied with the law and completed the full release of the Epstein files despite the fact that there are reported to be at least 3 million unreleased files or 150 million if you believe 4chan, which I don't. In compliance with the law, the letter also contained a complete list of all government officials and politically exposed persons whose names appeared in the files. Unfortunately, Congress failed to define what a politically exposed person is, something Bondi highlighted in a letter. Wait, isn't this something that has at least in Europe, I think this has a definition? Cuz I've had to sign, you know, when you open a bank account, they'll ask, "Are you a politically exposed person?" Cuz apparently there's different rules or something. Oh, I guess it's something to look into corruption and bribery and such things. But yeah, you have to check that little box. As such, the list of 305 names is treated as a joke. Even though the released files consistently contained redactions to protect co-conspirators and Epstein's sex [music] trafficking and abuse, the full list contains people who clearly had nothing to do with anything and were mentioned in passing. Names like Bono, Princess Diana, Bruce Springsteen, Alyssa Milano, Elvis Presley, Janice Joplin, and so on. I Elvis Presley, [snorts] right? Basically, the administration thinks you're stupid and that this is all one big joke and they're going to continue to obfuscate reality it for as long as possible to protect a bunch of billionaire sex criminals allegedly.

There is one silver lining though. It's very clear that this administration is not going to hold anyone in the Epstein files accountable, nor are they going to hold themselves accountable for violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act. But the word "act" at the end of that means that this was passed into law. If Congress had issued a congressional subpoena, the administration could just refuse to comply and wait out the time. Whereas those subpoenas expire at the end of each Congress. Guys, there's too many loopholes. We want the files. Release the files. But because the Transparency Act is a law, there is no expiration. This means when there's a new president in 2028 and presumably a new attorney general, they will likely be able to prosecute everybody involved in the cover-up of these files and the failure to comply with the law. Of course, if that does happen, then the defendants will just argue that the new administration is trying to prosecute their political enemies. Though, I'm not convinced the general public's going to fall for that one. 5 years ago, they probably would have, but it feels like we're finally returning to the world where the statement "sexually abusing children is bad" no longer divides people along party lines despite the best efforts of some aforementioned political pundits. Yeah, the vote was like 400 something to one and the one dude was like, "I'm not sure you're redacting the names well enough." Right. [laughter] And they weren't.

Wrap-up. Where things stand right now. It looks like nothing is going to happen as a result of the Epstein files. At least not for a while. The files certainly appear to contain a treasure trove of information revealing all sorts of criminal activity, but it's mostly just alluding to that activity. I mean, there are probably videos of a whole ton of illegal things happening. But those videos will never be released to the public. And with good reason. Without videos explicitly depicting a crime, however, there is no smoking gun. Or maybe there is. After all, if I had a gunshot and ran into another room to find Simon standing over a dead body and holding a smoking gun, where would you get that from, Kevin? While the smoking gun would actually be circumstantial evidence, which is which there is plenty of in these files. I know that's not what people mean when they use that phrase, but I stand by my technicality. The unfortunate reality is that we shouldn't expect to see American investigations into Epstein's co-conspirators or any charges against current members of the DOJ or FBI for the foreseeable future. If ever.

It's likely that the Democrats will take control of the Senate following this year's elections. And they may even flip the House as well, in no small part due to Republican gerrymandering. What the [expletive] is gerrymandering? In the event the Democrats somehow win large enough majorities in both houses of Congress to be able to impeach Trump without any Republican support, Trump may fire Pam Bondi and appoint a new attorney general to charge Bondi at all with obstruction [music] in an attempt to save face and avoid impeachment. But since we live in the real world where there is a 0% chance that the Democrats will win such a large majority in both houses, the earliest we could expect to see any movement is likely 2029. Presumably, Trump will pardon all of his lackeys who may be guilty [music] of contempt and obstruction. But perhaps Epstein's co-conspirators could finally face justice should the next administration choose to actually investigate all the alleged crimes that appear to have been revealed in the Epstein files release and maybe release the other files. Come on. It's nice to see the United States switching things up for once, though. Compared to your European sensibilities, Simon, I know a lot of our criminal sentences come across as extremely draconian and incredibly inconsistent. They do, Kevin. One of the arguments against such lengthy sentences is that punishment isn't a deterrent for crime. So, I guess the US is testing this theory out with the most heinous crimes imaginable by not punishing them at all. I'd joke that we aren't far from the purge at this point, but Trump already suggested that we do that when he was on the campaign trail. Do you really? [snorts]

That's the end of the episode. What a [expletive] mess. Release the files, guys. Come on. Thanks for watching.