Transcription
Welcome to the Epstein experience featuring J.D. Vance. The vice president has gone on the world's largest podcast to slip us some propaganda. They're hoping you won't notice because the cover-up that was 6 months ago. Now the rewrite has started. I hope you've forgotten some of those details because you're going to need to misremember everything in the Epstein files in order to believe what they're trying to sell us.
And so you got to be careful of the podcast these days. The times have changed. It's no longer bros talking. All these powerful people who used to go try to spin stuff on cable TV have now realized this is the new place to sell your propaganda. It's not on cable TV. Nobody's there. It's on the Joe Rogan experience. You got to be skeptical of all these guys who go on the show. I mean, except that guy, obviously. Wait, click off that. Some of these guys you can trust. Some of them, you know, they just have the right look to them. I think you can trust them.
But today I just want to break down all the claims made regarding the Epstein files, starting with what I thought was the most egregious one, and that centrally explains why they're really talking about this. What their new line of attack is on the Epstein files. They didn't cover it up. They just mishandled the comms.
>> I'll say this with all candor, like we absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files. Like we just did. But do I think the reason we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? No.
How convenient. They didn't cover it up, obstruct, lie about what was in the Epstein files until they were forced by the Senate and House of Representatives in order to release it. No, no, no, no. They just, they just screwed up the comms. They just, they just, you know, they just didn't know how to roll that out.
>> It's obvious that Epstein was a sick man.
>> Yes, but if people want to say we mishandled the Epstein release, guilty.
>> Oh, that's fine. You can say we mishandled it. Did we do it on purpose? No, no, no, no, not at all.
>> We did mishandle it, especially the communications of it. What do you think should have been done? I think that we should have just dropped everything at the very beginning and like, obviously it takes a little time to review the stuff, to find the stuff, to redact things where you have victims and so forth, but we should have just done it as quickly as possible.
>> I mean, like the thing you all ran on? That didn't occur to you to do it? There was no reason other than you guys hid it for months and months? Like, I don't even know who believes this except for people who just take this stuff at face value. But, I want to show you definitively you should not take the Vice President at face value. J.D. Vance in this interview admits to things that tells you that he is a propagandist. He's not just a guy talking about his true beliefs on an issue. And the way we know this is because of how he talks about Iran, where, specifically when asked about his real opinion, he says, "Look, I'm not a commentator." He's just here to execute for the president.
>> I mean, my attitude towards this man, as you know, as the Vice President, I'm not a public commentator. Like, my job is to give the best advice I can to the President of the United States, but once the President makes a decision, my attitude towards it is I try to make it as successful as possible.
So, that's what he's doing here with the Epstein files. Look, they covered it up. They made that decision. And now J.D. Vance is here to try to make it sound as palatable as possible to you, the viewer. And it's not just J.D. Vance that says this. The New York Times has actual reporting on inside the White House freakout of the Epstein files. J.D. Vance is literally quoted in that piece talking about the Epstein file saying, "This is a huge problem." When talking about the President and Epstein's relationship, there was some reporting that was coming out. J.D. Vance was trying to think of gambits to try to get people off the scent. Quote, "He thought that the White House should enlist Tucker Carlson to interview Epstein's long-time girlfriend and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in prison." It might help the president if Maxwell was willing to state that Trump had not been a part of wrongdoing with Epstein. Well, by the way, that happened, but just with Todd Blanche, not Tucker Carlson. So, we literally know internally J.D. was saying, "Hey, this is a huge problem. Hey, we need to deal with this. We got to, you know, maybe get Tucker Carlson to interview Ghislaine Maxwell. We got to, we got to find a way to convince the public that this is no big deal, right?" He's literally part of the cover-up. Then he goes on the Joe Rogan experience to do his spin move, right?
Now, if you're wondering, well, how can we trust that New York Times reporting, right? Well, actually J.D. Vance quotes it. This was during a section where J.D. Vance, the "I'm not a commentator" guy, was trying to establish his bonafides with Joe Rogan's audience. He goes, "Hey, look, I'm a conspiracy theorist, too." And he quotes the article.
>> You could, you know, I could literally do two episodes about this. I have gone on down to every rabbit hole. There's this funny New York Times story that's somewhat true, somewhat false, but where Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, says, "Well, we know J.D.'s a conspiracy theorist on this." Like I am, actually. I've I've gone down every, every rabbit hole here.
So, J.D. Vance says, "Hey, look, guys. Hey, I'm just like you. I may not be a commentator. I may be here to just play spin, but I'm like, I've been down every rabbit hole. Nothing to see here, guys. We just mishandled the comms." But if you look at it, that's just a direct quote from the New York Times article. Now, of course, yes, J.D. says, "Oh, yeah, some of it's true, some of it's false."
>> Somewhat true, somewhat false.
But, which part? You're quoted in there covering the thing up. Was that the part that's fake? The part which says you're a real conspiracy theorist like the rest of us? Oh, no, no, no, that's that's that's true. Everything else where you were involved in a cover-up involving the White House, where you were directly floating ideas to go interview Epstein's co-conspirator, not to get to the truth, but in order to exonerate the president, that's all probably fake. That's all probably nonsense.
But it gets even worse because one of the things J.D. talks about is how he's thought a lot about how to discredit conspiracy theories. Watch.
>> One of the ways you discredit conspiracy theory, I thought about this a lot, is try to hide it. Another way you discredit conspiracy theories by flooding the zone.
Did you guys just hear that? He goes, "I've thought a lot about it. One of the ways to discredit a conspiracy theory is to try to hide it. They did that. They actually did that. They told us, 'Hey, there's no evidence to predicate an investigation against any uncharged third parties. We looked at all the documents. Nothing to see here, guys. We're not going to release it.'" And then the second way is to flood the zone, which is you just throw so much unsubstantiated stuff out here, you discredit the conspiracy theory entirely.
>> Another way you discredit conspiracy theories by flooding the zone. So, one of the things I've tried doing when looking at all this stuff is to try to understand sort of where it fits in and, and to, you know, try to separate the real from the fake.
Now, is that what they did next? Well, actually, yes, it is. The way they released the files was in this giant dump of millions of documents. Not only that, Vance in the New York Times article, he says is somewhat true, somewhat false, says, "Unsubstantiated allegations and anecdotes about Trump should go out." Vance argued. "They were going to surface regardless, and if the administration published first, it would demonstrate good faith and take the oxygen out of conspiracy theories." Guys, he literally tried to do the thing he's telling you on Joe Rogan. Oh, I've thought a lot about this. This is how you discredit a conspiracy theory. You release a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff, so they don't pay attention to the stuff that is substantiated.
And this is my problem with these types of interviews. Look, I don't think there's anything wrong with interviewing the vice president, but you have to take into account that he's not just a bro. He's not just your buddy, right? This is a guy who tells you he's not here to commentate. He's not here to give his real opinion. He's here to propagandize for what the president's agenda is. Here's a guy who says he's thought a lot about discrediting conspiracy theories.
>> One of the ways you discredit conspiracy theory, I thought about this a lot.
Here's a guy who corroborates reporting where he is directly conspiring to discredit the Epstein conspiracy theory. But oh, we'll just let him get away with saying he's just like one of us, bro. He's gone down every rabbit hole.
>> I'm like, one of the OG Epstein conspiracy theorists. I've probably gone down every single rabbit hole we could go down, uh, most of them today.
And so look, with that out of the way, I just want to debunk some of the specific claims that JD Vance made. Uh, one, he tried to say, "Hey, look, the real problem was all with Alex Acosta back in 2007-2008 with the prosecution."
>> Look, the original sin of the Epstein investigation. And obviously I'm biased here. But it was not what Donald Trump and the administration did in 2025. It was you have to go back to 2007-2008. The original Alex Acosta investigation of Jeffrey Epstein where he basically dropped the federal charges. I think Epstein ended up getting prosecuted on some sort of local thing. But the original warrant, you go to the original warrant back in 2008. What was he looking for? What was he allowed to look for? What were they collecting? It was not looking at a broader conspiracy. So, that happens, okay? Epstein gets pinched. I think he goes to prison or maybe this is when he was on house arrest. But like anything that existed from the '80s and '90s up to 2006-2007, anything that existed that we didn't get back then was disappeared. Right? So, like when people say, "Has, has what you've seen on the inside make you think that the, you know, that Epstein never blackmailed people or that Epstein never engaged in broader trafficking?" No, absolutely not. What I have seen, and I've looked at most of the files, is that there just wasn't dispositive evidence. And if that dispositive evidence ever existed, it was probably destroyed after 2006-2007.
JD, I got to give him credit. He's so good at this because some of what he's saying is like half true. Alex Acosta did mess up the investigation. There was a completely ridiculous plea deal done, a sweetheart deal, and there wasn't enough evidence collected. That's all true. But, here's the big lie. There was enough, and still is enough, in the Epstein files to predicate an investigation into uncharged third parties. There just absolutely is. There is evidence of a guy still at large that is talking about bringing girls over from Eastern Europe, very clearly in order to traffic them. There are powerful people mentioned in these files. Where we don't have those people's records, right? Cuz he's saying, "Oh, we don't have enough from Epstein stuff." Well, has it ever occurred to you guys that you could investigate other people? But, that's not happening because that's not the goal here. The goal has been, and we saw it in the New York Times reporting, which JD Vance corroborated, was to bury this story as quickly as possible and move on. Meanwhile, they throw up their hands and they go, "Oh, we just don't have enough evidence, you know, to lock anybody up today." He doesn't explain why they can't go start investigations tomorrow.
>> It's kind of incredible to think in hindsight that in 2019, the government, specifically the FBI, had 10 co-conspirators they were investigating, and now we have none.
And this brings me to my last point, which is about some of the victims who were not interviewed for all of this. One of the big revelations towards the end of the Epstein release was the fact that the DOJ has not met with many of the people who were trafficked to Epstein. That's something you would think would be the first stop if you're trying to get to the bottom of something like this. Rather than interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell and then cutting her a sweetheart deal to move her to a nice minimum security prison.
>> Todd Blanche has never attempted to listen to us, the crime victims. Survivors in this room repeatedly asked to meet with Todd Blanche through multiple channels. He never responded. Yesterday, he said he would meet with us with our attorneys if they were present. Um, but let's be clear, that was the first time that that was ever communicated to us before yesterday.
>> Yeah, Todd Blanche is the top of the DOJ right now. He's like the guy who technically is in charge of all of this. According to that woman, Todd Blanche only recently said he would even be willing to meet with the victims, and that was because he was very directly asked about this where he couldn't really get out of it.
>> I have never said I will not meet with survivors.
>> Will you meet with these 10 survivors? I'm asking you on the record.
>> I have lawyers, as you know, I'm prohibited from meeting directly with them. I have met with counsel for survivors, as has many people in the Department of Justice, over 30. But if they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make arrangements to make sure the right people at the Department of Justice meet with them. Absolutely.
>> Will you get it done within the next 30 days that each of these survivors?
>> What do you mean today? We're talking 2026, bro. We've been talking about the Epstein files for literally years now, and as the lead guy, you didn't think of this? It's only when you're being pushed to meet with survivors that that would even occur to you that they might have information on the people who committed these awful acts against them? I mean, that never occurred to something I just don't believe it. And that's the thing, when you actually hear some of these survivors talk, a lot of them will say that it's been a pattern of not investigating.
>> Jess, why do you think it was so hard for him to just say, "Yes, I will." Especially given the fact that we know Todd Blanche flew down to Florida and met with Ghislaine Maxwell, of all people, in person.
>> One of the tactics we've seen is avoiding investigation. So, for example, I gave leads back in 2019 for two uh people to follow. One that had been in Jeffrey Epstein's uh orbit for over 18 years, and one that could corroborate that she also knew the same person. And I know directly that those leads were never followed.
I mean, isn't this insane? We have it from the actual survivors, who by the way, in some of these cases, the only reason they're public now is because they were doxxed by the DOJ. And so now they're like, well, screw it. I've been had my story made public forcibly. So now I'm going to have to just go public. But all of these things just point to one direction. We have buried this story repeatedly, and the vice president, coincidentally, is going on the world's number one podcast to try to pretend that is not the case, that they did all they could, but if only Alex Acosta would have done more back in 2007. Now they just can't do their job because their hands are tied.
See, yeah, basically the way I see it, there are two sides in this story. One side actually experienced these awful acts and is telling us that our government has not been investigating these crimes fully, and the other side has told you that they're not a real commentator. They're here to just spin the narrative. They have told you they've thought a lot about how to discredit conspiracy theories, and they have half verified, half denied a report that has them conspiring to do all the things. So yeah, I think this is a pretty obvious one, but I wanted to talk about it anyways to counteract some of this ridiculous propaganda. See you.