7/17/25: Saagar Debates Michael Tracey On Epstein Israel Connections

Summary

Podcast Summary: Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar Episode: 7/17/25: Saagar Debates Michael Tracey On Epstein Israel Connections
Release Date: July 17, 2025
Host/Authors: Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti
Guest: Michael Tracey, Independent Journalist
Platform: iHeartPodcasts
Duration: Approximately 57 minutes

---

Introduction

Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar dives deep into controversial topics, questioning mainstream narratives and holding powerful figures accountable. In this episode, aired on July 17, 2025, hosts Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti engage in a heated debate with guest Michael Tracey regarding the intricate connections between Jeffrey Epstein, Israeli officials, and the alleged sex trafficking network.

Michael Tracey's Examination of the Epstein Narrative

Michael Tracey begins by challenging the prevailing "Epstein mythology," arguing that many theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring lack solid evidence. At 03:28, Tracey states:

"There is a genuine trafficking conspiracy for people to get upset about... many people in the Trump orbit trafficked in nonsense for the past several years."

He critiques the narrative that Epstein was connected to a vast pedophilic network protected by powerful Democrats, suggesting instead that many of these claims are unfounded and politically motivated.

Trump's Involvement and the Epstein Files

The discussion shifts to former President Donald Trump's fluctuating stance on releasing Epstein's files. Krystal questions Tracey at 02:12 about Trump's inconsistent behavior:

"Why is he acting the way that he is around Jeffrey Epstein and ran on releasing the files and now he's not gonna release the files and there are no files."

Tracey responds by highlighting the Trump administration's strategies to appeal to audiences prone to conspiratorial thinking:

"The 2024 Republican campaign strategy... was to tailor a message to audiences who consume this kind of media... every conspiracy theory that they might believe in... it's like their epistemology."

He argues that Trump's vague promises regarding the Epstein files were politically expedient but ultimately lacked substantive follow-through.

Virginia Giuffre's Credibility Under Scrutiny

A pivotal moment in the debate centers on Virginia Giuffre, a key accuser in the Epstein case. Krystal asserts at 06:35:

"Virginia Giuffre was a serial fabulist... her accusations against high-profile individuals like Alan Dershowitz lacked credibility."

Tracey counters by acknowledging Giuffre's troubled past but emphasizes that the focus should not solely rest on her:

"She was a troubled individual... But I'm not relying all of this on Virginia Giuffre."

Both debaters explore how Giuffre's credibility affected legal proceedings, particularly in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, where her unreliable testimony prevented her from being a prosecution witness.

Intelligence Connections and Israeli Officials

The conversation delves into Epstein's alleged ties with Israeli intelligence and prominent Israeli officials. Tracey presents a case linking Epstein to multiple Israeli Prime Ministers, including Ehud Barak:

"Ehud Barak was a longtime associate of Epstein... involved in multiple sketchy arms transactions from the 1980s."

Krystal probes further, questioning how these connections fit into the broader narrative of Epstein's activities:

"You had Ehud Barak strategizing with Epstein on media interviews... Could Epstein have been an intelligence asset?"

Tracey maintains skepticism, pointing out the lack of concrete evidence linking Epstein directly to intelligence operations:

"The CIA doesn't come out and say... Do you believe the official Warren Commission?"

Perverse Incentives in Legal Settlements

Another significant topic is the financial settlements awarded to Epstein's accusers. Krystal raises concerns about the incentives for victims to dramatize their claims to secure lucrative payouts:

"There's a perverse incentive in terms of dramatizing claims to maximize one's chances to receive the biggest possible payout."

Tracey agrees, highlighting how confidential settlements can undermine the credibility of allegations:

"Victims can do so confidentially... there's no downside reputational risk for them."

They discuss how these incentives may have influenced the narratives presented to the public, particularly in high-profile cases involving political elites.

Debunking Intelligence Asset Theories

The debate touches on claims made by various sources suggesting that Epstein was an intelligence asset. Krystal questions the validity of these assertions, while Tracey emphasizes the reliance on speculative and hearsay evidence:

"Michael Wolff claims Epstein was involved with intelligence services... Michael Tracey refutes this as hearsay."

They critically examine statements from individuals like Alex Acosta and Steve Bannon, debating whether there is credible evidence to support the theory that Epstein was tied to intelligence agencies.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

In wrapping up the episode, Krystal and Tracey agree on the necessity for greater transparency and forensic audits of Epstein's financial dealings. However, they remain divided on the implications of the existing evidence:

Tracey: "Maybe it won't show any of this... Perhaps it's all expediently concocted."

Krystal: "I would love for the maximum amount of material to come out... because Virginia Giuffre disagrees, who you happily conceded was a serial fabulist."

The hosts underscore the importance of critically evaluating sources and avoiding the pitfalls of political exploitation of tragic narratives.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• 03:28
  Michael Tracey: "There is a genuine trafficking conspiracy for people to get upset about... many people in the Trump orbit trafficked in nonsense for the past several years."

• 06:35
  Krystal Ball: "Virginia Giuffre was a serial fabulist... her accusations against high-profile individuals like Alan Dershowitz lacked credibility."

• 13:23
  Saagar Enjeti: "The US Virgin Islands, credibly accused of having a minor traffic the US Virgin Islands... What happened to that Attorney General?"

• 17:50
  Saagar Enjeti: "Epstein had multiple financial transactions which broke bank rules in which he's transferring money to Eastern European women for apparent sex trafficking purposes."

• 28:10
  Krystal Ball: "I'm not trying to personally attack you... but that judge overturned the NPA, which is the reason why perhaps some motivations are coming back for your rights."

• 42:03
  Krystal Ball: "Agree that there's a perverse incentive in terms of dramatizing claims to maximize one's chances to receive the biggest possible payout?"

• 47:23
  Michael Tracey: "She obviously did... She just made up an enormous amount of stuff."

Key Takeaways

• Challenging Mainstream Narratives: The episode critically examines widely accepted theories about Epstein's alleged sex trafficking network, questioning the evidence and motivations behind them.

• Credibility of Accusers: Focus is placed on Virginia Giuffre's credibility, exploring the impact of her personal history and legal actions on the broader narrative.

• Political Exploitation: The discussion highlights how political figures and media outlets may exploit traumatic events for electoral gain, potentially distorting public perception.

• Intelligence Connections: Claims of Epstein's ties to intelligence agencies are scrutinized, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence over speculative assertions.

• Legal Settlements and Incentives: The structure of legal settlements for alleged victims is critiqued for creating incentives that may compromise the credibility of claims.

This episode of Breaking Points encourages listeners to adopt a questioning mindset, urging them to seek transparency and evidence-based conclusions in high-profile cases involving powerful individuals.

Transcript

[Host]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[PayPal Advertiser]

Every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations hello, it.

[Ryan]

Is Ryan and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chumbacasino.com I looked over the person sitting next to me and you know what they were doing? They were also playing Chumba Casino. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino is home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere. So sign up [e-mail] to claim your free welcome bonus. That's chumbacasino.com and live the Chumba Life.

[Host]

Sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary VGW Group Void where prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions.

[Lenovo Advertiser]

Apply Want to feel more creative but don't have the right laptop? Lenovo.com can help. Look through our legendary lineup of AI powered PCs and devices and find the one that fits your passion. Our PCs, powered by Intel Core Ultra processors as well as cutting edge AI tools, allow students to focus, learn and create with ease. That's the power of Lenovo with Intel Inside plus, college students and teachers can get 5% off their order shop now on Lenovo.com the future's waiting and it needs you.

[Sagar]

Hey guys, Sagar and Krystal here.

[Krystal]

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.

[Sagar]

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

[Krystal]

So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows unedited ad free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

[Sagar]

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see [e-mail].

[Krystal]

Joining us now for a little friendly Epstein debate friend of the show, Michael Tracy, independent journalist and you can check him out [e-mail] great to see you sir.

[Sagar]

Always A pleasure to see you, Michael.

[Krystal]

Absolutely. So I said this before, but I'm even though like, everybody knows I'm more on Sagar's side on this, but I'm gonna try my best to play the role as neutral moderator so we can have a one on one and you're not getting just like, you know, teamed up on by both of us on this whole thing. But you recently wrote an article that takes apart some of what you describe as the Epstein mythology. This is for Compact Mag. We can put this up on the screen. The headline here is the idiocy of the Epstein mythology. And you've been very vocal on Twitter now X as well in taking apart what you see as some of the more tenuous theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So before we dive, I was sort of level set with you, Michael, of like, what do you think is going on with Trump right now? Like, why is he acting the way that he is around Jeffrey Epstein and ran on releasing the files and now he's not gonna release the files and there are no files. And now yes, there are files, but they were written by Obama and screw you and I don't even want you to be a supporter if you believe any of this nonsense. What is your assessment of what is actually happening here?

[Host]

Well, there's no doubt that the Trump administration has embroiled itself in a PR fiasco of its own making. I would argue, you know, I slightly, tongue in cheek say at the end of that article that I do think that there is a genuine trafficking conspiracy for people to get upset about. And it's that so many people in the Trump orbit trafficked in nonsense for the past several years, namely Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, et cetera, when they spent their time tantalizing their followers with these teases about how there was going to be some explosive revelation once the second Trump administration got in power and vanquished the deep state. And by natural extension of that, of course, the quote unquote, Epstein files would be released because it was the satanic demonic Democrats who were for some reason covering up all the damning information to protect their donors and friends and allies. Because Democrats in this Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, you know, Rumble universe imagination are perpetually covering for pedophilic sex trafficking networks. And Trump was occasionally asked about this when he would go around on these ass kissing podcasts during the 2024 campaign. And if you go back and look at what he said, he would often be a little bit equivocal or non committal. He would say, yeah, sure, Maybe we'll look into releasing the Epstein files. But it wasn't as if Trump went around campaigning on this issue of his own volition. It's just that part of the 2024 Republican campaign strategy, which I thought was very clever and effective, was to tailor a message to audiences who consume this kind of media, meaning the Joe Rogan Network and kind of related podcasts that I would argue have conspiracism as a sort of habit of mind or kind of soft ideology. Not that they're wrong, but every conspiracy theory that they might believe in, but that's just sort of how they process information. It's like their epistemology. So these Republican campaigners had to tailor a message to these people and Trump just kind of played along with it and it was always, I think, going to blow up in their faces once the rubber hit the road. And they were pressed to actually make good on these promises. But Trump himself really evaded the issue.

[Krystal]

Let me just to be really clear what your position is, and I'll get Sager to respond. Do you believe there is no there there with regard to young girls being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to other powerful people, for example, Bill Clinton, potentially Donald Trump, potentially Bill Gates and others? You think there's no there there with regard to those questions. And do you also believe there's no there there with regard to potential intel connections, whether it's CIA or Mossad?

[Host]

Yeah. So let me try to spell this out pretty carefully. I try to differentiate between what I've been referring to as Epstein mythology versus the actual factual record when it comes to Epstein. In the realm of mythology, there exists this belief, and correct me if you guys think I'm wrong, there exists this widespread belief that a pedophilic sex trafficking ring has been systematically covered up and that Jeffrey Epstein orchestrated this pedophilic sex trafficking ring by trafficking minors to prominent third party individuals and then conducted a blackmail operation to coerce those individuals into silence or complicity or something. And the idea was that previously the Biden administration was maliciously covering up this information, again to protect the likes of Bill Clinton or Bill Gates, etc. But now the idea is shockingly to the MAGA base or the MAGA social media influencers anyway, which I'm not sure is totally synonymous with the base, but that's sort of another issue. Now, to their absolute shock, Donald Trump is apparently engaging in this very same coverup. I would argue that the factual predicate for that assumption, which I think you guys will Agree is extremely widespread. That's why people were so incensed about this issue. The factual predicate for that is not well established at all, or not nearly as established as you would think, given the confidence with which people assert the existence of that thing that they're so certain exists. Okay, all right, let's go ahead on the intel thing.

[Krystal]

Let's go ahead and get Sager in and then we'll come back and can dig more specifically into the intel.

[Sagar]

Michael, first of all, I would point out that part of the reason that the quote unquote factual predicate doesn't exist for what you're talking about is actually in existence, in my opinion, that if you look at the open source information for how so many of these prominent individuals dealt with Epstein, and then eventually the non prosecution agreement that was eventually signed by Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein, and eventually, of course, the Palm Beach County PD only bringing a case against him for solicitation of prostitution actually proves that part of the reason why a lot of this stuff doesn't exist in the quote unquote factual predicate and or DOJ documents is part of the reason why so much of this does not exist in court basis, et cetera. If you actually look at the information. I mean, I think Leslie Wexner is perhaps the best example for proving what you were talking about, where we have a actual high prominent individual in the year 1991, one of the only billionaires here in the United States of America, the richest man in Ohio, who gives power of attorney to Jeffrey Epstein over his entire estate, transfers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate over to him, to which Epstein then uses those properties, as you just pointed out in the factual predicate as exists and points out in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, which, yes, is only about human trafficking between young women and Epstein himself, as in he is the sole person who is victimizing these women. That was on Wexner related properties. That's a pretty direct example of where nobody, including Wexner himself, has ever been able to give an example of how exactly you had this extraordinary situation of signing over power of attorney. And in fact, Vicky Ward, James Stewart, the biographers who looked into the story say that many of the people around Wexner believe that it was a result of a blackmail operation. It's not that difficult to imagine that the founder of Victoria's Secret, which entails selling lingerie to teenage girls and surrounding yourselves with beautiful models, and all of this would be involved in some pretty sketchy behavior with a known pedophile of Jeffrey Epstein. So I think that's a pretty clear example, tracing all the way back from 1991, showing the ability to use and coerce behavior, perhaps blackmail and others to enrich himself. And also, I mean, we can get into the intelligence case now in the future, but exactly why so many people, I think rightfully can point at an example like that and say, it's very clear if you look at that pattern, that there is smoke there. Now, I agree this has not yet been proven, but I would actually argue that the reason that it has not been proven is specifically to cover up the very type of behavior.

[Host]

Well, that some people around Wexner may have believed, as you put it, that there was some potential explanation for Epstein's inheritance of this wealth that had to do with blackmail is not a proven factual predicate for anything.

[Sagar]

Well, nobody's saying that, but by that point, we're not supposed to take any reporting. At the end of the day, you have a multi billionaire who, who signs over power of attorney for his entire estate and hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate, and it's because he thought he was a money genius.

[Host]

That shows, I acknowledge, that there are aspects to this story that are non mythological in the sense that they really do raise questions about the mystery surrounding how he garnered his wealth and so forth. But let me give one example that I don't think has adequately penetrated the popular consciousness nor has it been adequately covered on alternative media, maybe including this very show, Virginia Giuffre, who I think you'll agree, if you've studied this case, which I assume that you have, is the central figure who spawned the widespread belief that there had to have been this pedophilic sex trafficking network. Because in late 2014, she issued a court filing in which she alleged that she had been sex trafficked to a myriad of prominent third party individuals like Prince Andrew, like the former Majority Leader of the United States Senate, George Mitchell, like the former Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and other people. And then she also made a categorical claim that she had been trafficked to, like, unnamed prime ministers and other people of prominence around the world. That's what really spawned it. And I just don't think it's disputable that Virginia Giuffre was a serial fabulist. I know people don't wanna hear that. I know whenever I've commented on this subject anywhere on the Internet, 95% of the comment sections are against me and they think that I'm covering up for pedophiles or Something as though, I love pedophilia. And that's why I'm making this argument that's not the case. Virginia Giuffre, per the factual record, was a serial. Fabulous. I'm sure you know, Sager, that she accused Alan Dershowitz.

[Sagar]

Yes, I do.

[Host]

Of having been one of the third party individuals to whom she was trafficked. She made this accusation adamantly under the COVID of the litigation privilege for nearly a decade. Then, by 2022, because Dershowitz actually had the resources and the motivation to pursue this charge against him, or to dispute it to the point of a settlement, she then had to retract and recant this signature claim that she had been making for 10 years almost that very much animated the media coverage around this issue. She withdrew it. She totally obliterated her own credibility. And then, sure enough, in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial of 2021, she was not even as a witness by the prosecution because she would have been a nightmare under cross examination, because so many of the things, the most salacious claims that she made around this story just do not stand up to basic scrutiny. You can even find examples of her signing on to, like, literal hoaxes in terms of these creeps who came out the woodwork claiming that they had the video footage of illicit sexual activity in Epstein's properties. And then Giuffre's own attorney, David Boies, who, by the way, made a killing on this whole issue. That's another thing we could get into how basically the Epstein matter had subsidized the South Florida bar and all these feeding frenzy lawyers who have made a killing. But.

[Sagar]

Well, I would argue the money went the other way, Michael. But. Yeah, continue.

[Host]

Yeah, it goes both ways. But the defense attorneys concocted a whole strategy whereby they would extract enormous payouts for themselves.

[Sagar]

Well, okay, given the toxicity of the. She's one victim. She's a very troubled individual.

[Host]

Last point. Last point. Virginia Giuffre made millions of dollars. She had a life of luxury as a result of her deciding to become this professional victim. That was her full time job. She launched this scam. Ngo. I thought the right was supposed to.

[Sagar]

Be skeptical ngo, not what is doing right now. Michael, do you know how it ended up?

[Host]

She ce. Yeah, that's right. She's deceased.

[Sagar]

Yeah, because her life and because she.

[Host]

Was a very troubled person.

[Sagar]

She was a troubled individual, unreliable person. It's not deniable. She's pictured there with Prince Andrew. But to paint it only as a. Virginia Giuffre is one of the only People that is saying this is just not accurate. Part of the reason why she wasn't.

[Host]

Integral to the story.

[Sagar]

She was absolutely integral to the coverage and largely is because of the photo, which you're not gonna deny, I hope, of her picture with Prince Andrew, which is literally what got him removed from his public duties as from his public duties as a member of the British royal family. Clearly they believe, at least in some part, that Prince Andrew was involved in some pretty sketchy behavior. There was his relationship with Epstein. But even. Let's step back further.

[Host]

Yeah, the royal family was coerced through the tsunami of horrible PR that they were subject to.

[Sagar]

What do you mean?

[Host]

Horrible PR stemming in part hanging out.

[Sagar]

With a convicted sex offender and in this case with a 17 year old girl with his arm around her. That's not acceptable behavior, not just for a British royal family.

[Host]

He wasn't a convicted sex offender at the time that photo was reportedly taken.

[Sagar]

You're right. He just. It's routine to be hanging out with 17 year old women and to take photos with them.

[Host]

Was he a convicted sex offender at the time that that photo was?

[Sagar]

Check the date on what it is.

[Host]

But he wasn't. It was taken purportedly in 2001. Again, he was not a convicted sex offender.

[Sagar]

So you're saying then in that case that Prince Andrew, the member of the British royal family, did not have access to the global elite in which like Donald Trump could say on the record in 2002, before Jeffrey Epstein is convicted as a sex offender, in which he can say, Jeffrey, he likes him young. In which is this open secret, literally among the jet set class that this type of behavior is acceptable to Harvey Weinstein and to everybody else. This is open out from Vanity Fair reporting from quote, from Donald Trump himself. That's our current president. But beyond that, it is an open out.

[Host]

Donald Trump said that Jeffrey Epstein is a great guy and he tends to like the company of young women or something like that.

[Sagar]

He likes.

[Host]

Does that prove that Donald Trump is a sex offender?

[Sagar]

No, I didn't say that. He proves he's a sex offender.

[Host]

What does it prove?

[Sagar]

What I'm saying is that it's open knowledge that Epstein routinely is seen and is pictured with young women at that time, by the way. And let's continue this.

[Host]

And this is why so was Donald Trump.

[Sagar]

But pegging this entirely on Virginia Giuffre, again is not accurate. And I think it what is largely.

[Host]

I mean, she's the one who is.

[Sagar]

Not because again, the photo of her.

[Host]

With Princess Watch any of These Netflix documentaries, hbo, it's always Virginia front and center. They never it made it. They never ever qualify any of their coverage by noting that she has a proven, demonstrable record of serial fabulous. Okay, would you concede that she's a serial fabulous.

[Sagar]

I would concede that she was a troubled individual who clearly at this point, from the way that her attorneys and others have acknowledged that she did make up some facts and I do think so.

[Host]

She made up Brandy's claims.

[Sagar]

I'm not relying all of this on Virginia Giuffre. That's my point. I have a much broader, I have a much broader, broader amount of evidence to point and this is also where I think it kind of.

[Host]

You don't think conceding that the most high profile accuser who was integral in the claim of a sex trafficking ring insofar as her claim was that she was sex trafficked to prominent third party individuals. I'm not contesting that Epstein himself was a sexual predator. I mean he's on the record saying that he rejects that there should be any kind of taboo against, you know, post pubescent women of any age or girls of any age being accessible to men for impregnation. I mean, he had bizarre and creepy and depraved beliefs around sexual relations with minors. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting this third party sex trafficking ring that forms the basis, let me ask, of why people are so outraged now about something purportedly being covered up and all these elites getting away with things. You.

[Washable Sofas Advertiser]

Let'S be real. Life happens. Kids spill, pets shed and accidents are inevitable. Find a sofa that can keep [e-mail] Starting at just $699, our sofas are fully machine washable inside and out. So you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry free living. Made with liquid and stick stain resistant fabrics, they're kid proof, pet friendly and built for everyday life. Plus, changeable fabric covers let you refresh your sofa whenever you want. Need flexibility? Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa anytime to fit your space, whether it's a growing family room or a cozy apartment. Plus, they're earth friendly and trusted by over 200,000 happy customers. It's time to upgrade to a stressful free mess proof sofa. Visit washablesofas.com today and save. That's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Chumba Casino Advertiser]

Step into the world of power, loyalty and luck. I'm gonna make him an offer. He can't refuse with family. Cannolis and spins mean everything. Now you want to get mixed up in the family business. Introducing the Godfather at chopa castle casino.com test your luck in the shadowy world of the Godfather slots. Someday I will call upon you to do a service for me. Play the Godfather [e-mail] Welcome to the family.

[Host]

No purchase necessary. VGW Group void We're prohibited by law. 21 plus terms and conditions apply. Ah, come on.

[Krystal]

Why is this taking so long? This thing is ancient.

[Lenovo Advertiser]

Still using yesterday's tech upgrade to the ThinkPad X1 carbon ultralight. Ultra powerful and built for serious productivity with Intel Core Ultra processors, blazing speed and AI powered performance. It keeps up with your business, not the other way around.

[Krystal]

Whoa, this thing moves.

[Lenovo Advertiser]

Stop hitting snooze on new tech. Win the tech [e-mail] Unlock AI experiences with the ThinkPad X1 Carbon powered by Intel Core Ultra processors so you can work, create and boost productivity all on one device.

[Krystal]

Let me ask you a question about this, Michael. How do you explain the deal he was able to cut down in Florida with Alex Acosta, who goes on to be Trump's labor secretary, who was U.S. attorney at the time, which led to him serving, I believe, 13 minutes in a county jail where the jail cell was open, where he was able to go to his office for 12 hours a day afterwards he's released. There is significant reporting that indicates even after he was supposed to be on home confinement, he's flying around, he's doing what he wants to do. That deal was so sort of outlandish that actually a judge came in and said, you violated the rights of victims. This deal was actually technically illegal. And not only did it provide for a very cushy deal and very low level charge, ultimately for Jeffrey Epstein, it also indicated that none of his potential co conspirators could be charged whatsoever. So how do you explain this person getting such an incredibly cushy deal at that point and a deal again, that allows any even theoretical coconspirators off the hook, which is so extraordinary that even Ghislaine Maxwell now is appealing to the Supreme Court saying, hey, I should have been part of that deal. What am I in prison for? Since you the government said no co conspirators could ever be indicted or found guilty of anything.

[Host]

I'm just not sure why people think it's such a profound mystery that a wealthy individual, whatever the source of his wealth. And I agree that if possible, a more forensic audit should be done of how he acquired his wealth. But obviously he had the means to hire a dream team of lawyers to come and negotiate with the government on his behalf. He brought in Alan Dershowitz, who had just participated in securing an acquittal for O.J. simpson. He brought in Ken Starr to make a federalism argument to federal prosecutors, arguing that the offenses for which Epstein was accused were fundamentally state level crimes and did not enter the purview of federal prosecutors on that ground because the federal prosecutors couldn't establish that there was trafficking across state lines or some other element that would place the crime in their purview. Were these technical arguments? Sure. But if you want to make this a scandal about wealthy people having access to powerful lawyers who can maybe get them a more lenient non prosecution agreement than the average person would have access to, I'd be all on board with that. But it seems that people just immediately launch into the explanation that he must have been some kind of intelligence asset or agent. And just to touch on that for a moment, you know, Sagar, I'm not trying to personally attack you on. I happened to see, I happened to. I saw a clip going around last week of you on Tucker's show in which you asserted that.

[Sagar]

Which I corrected, by the way. I corrected that quote.

[Host]

Okay, maybe you corrected it, but I'm just. But a lot of people have repeated this quote that Derives from a 2019 Vicky Ward article in which she's quoting or she's attributing this quote from Alex Acosta from several years before 2019 when he's in a meeting with Trump transition officials and according to Vicky Ward, a former Trump senior Trump administration official, which sounds a lot like Steve Bannon's blowing smoke. We don't know that with 100% certainty. By the way, why is Steve Bannon sitting on 16 hours of raw, uncut, Raw.

[Sagar]

We're all with you there. We're all with you there.

[Host]

Okay, and why was he strategizing with Epstein about how he could present himself for a media interview with 60 Minutes? But anyway, we'll leave that aside for the moment. But that quote was a sense. It's like the definition of hearsay. And yet it got characterized as an on record, like declaratory statement from Acosta of him just asserting that he had been warned that Epstein belonged to intelligence pursuant to the 2007 non prosecution agreement and therefore he should back off. That's not what that quote signified. And actually several Years later, post 2018, when the Miami Herald series breathed new life into the story, Harnessing the power of MeToo, which by the way, I thought the right was mostly skeptical of. Instead, on this issue and in like select circumstances, we hear the right saying believe women, we have to honor all survivors. We can't use any critical scrutiny of their claims. But after the MeToo NRG bolstered this story.

[Sagar]

That's not true. That's not what happened.

[Host]

The DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility conducted a review of the 2007, 2008 non prosecution agreement. And Alice Acosta did directly address this claim that he had once potentially asserted that Epstein belonged to intelligence. And that's why a supposedly more lenient deal was given. And Alex Acosta did deny it on the record. Now, in terms of the leniency of that deal, listen to what Dershowitz has to say. I'm not saying I agree with Alan Dershowitz on everything. In fact, I strongly disagree with him on the issue of Israel. It's odd to me that every critic of Israel now has to feel that they have to be wedded to this particular issue because their criticism of Israel is bolstered by the idea that the reason that Israel is so widely supported among power structures is because there's a pervasive sexual blackmail network. I think that kind of makes critics of Israel look rather stupid. But Dershowitz says that Epstein fired him and refused to pay his legal fees because Epstein felt that he did not get a lenient deal. He felt that the prostitution charges, state level prostitution charges in Florida that he was required to plead guilty to were actually overly onerous and he should not have had to be subject to any kind of state control at all. So there was a dispute over whether they were actually.

[Sagar]

Let me respond, Michael. The idea that this was because of MeToo is complete bullshit. The reason why he wasn't bolstered by it. The total energy of the U.S. the U.S. district Court Judge ruled that the non prosecution agreement violated the rights of. Of the victims who were not informed of the non prosecution agreement, which you're portraying as standard operating procedure for some sort of rich person. That is just absolutely.

[Host]

When did the Miami Herald series came out?

[Sagar]

I agree it came out in 2018, but it was a 12 year period in which the victims themselves were not informed of the situation, sued under their rights under the. I believe it's like the crime. The crime victim victims. Right. I don't exactly.

[Host]

Tina Brown, who have covered this issue very closely. My point is that what I'm saying.

[Sagar]

Is that the district court judge is the person who overturned the npa, which is the reason why perhaps some of the motivations of perhaps coming back for your rights. It is indisputable that the rights of the victims were violated under that non prosecution agreement. Number one, as you just pointed out in that OPR review, they said that Acosta himself exercised what poor judgment whenever he came to that. Now let's address that.

[Host]

But he denied the intelligence assets.

[Sagar]

Yeah, but let's address that intelligence. First of all. The transcript of that has never been made public. And the way that it was phrased specifically around OPR and when they asked him about intelligence was he said, absolutely not. I did not have information that he was an intelligence asset. The way that that question, as you and I know asked is pretty damn specific. Now let's talk about Israel as well. No, no, no, no, no.

[Host]

It was much more.

[Sagar]

Did you look at the footnote? Yes, I did. I looked at both the footnote where he said I was allowed to address it in a classified statute. He said absolutely not. When asked specifically whether he belonged to intelligence, he says no.

[Host]

He was asked whether he had knowledge of Epstein being a quote, intelligence asset.

[Sagar]

Yes.

[Host]

Stated to OPR that quote. The answer is no. I'm not sure how much more direct he could have been.

[Sagar]

The answer is, look, I mean, I'm trying to be very specific here. I believe that the way that that question is asked in the transcript and the circumstance are right in front of me. No, but that's my point though, is that even if you're quote, he belonged to intelligence and I was told to leave it alone is not direct knowledge. These are classic non denial denials. And in his 2019 press conference, he did not actually address it whenever he was asked on the record publicly. It's only in his OPR review that he later on comes back to it. I don't think you're Gonna deny in 2019 that he did not leave the door open to the fact that that report could have had some accuracy. He said something along the lines of I wouldn't believe everything you read, but it was a non denial denial. But at the time of that non prosecution agreement that you're talking about, Jeffrey Epstein by verified report is in Israel, basically brought all of his assets over there returns from Israel to Palm beach in April of 2008. So that's the first, in my opinion, sketchy connection for why he's exactly granted this special status in Israel whenever he's fighting a pedophile prosecution in the United States of America. But let's just continue down that fact. And this is the part That I just don't understand. For somebody who generally looks for links, why do you have the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak flying on his plane multiple times, staying at his house for months on end, pictured when there were women there holding a scarf in front of his face to hide his identity from the tabloids? Why is it that, what is it? JP Morgan in 2011 has to rely on Epstein to broker a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu? Why is it that Eoud Omer and Shimon Peres are both linked to Jeffrey Epstein? Ehud Barak was asked, how did you meet Jeffrey Epstein? I did it via Shimon Peres. Ehud Olmer is named specifically by the US Virgin Islands as an Epstein associate. I mean, if we take that and then combine it here with Leslie Wexner, the fact that Jeffrey Epstein is on board the Wexner foundation and then pays Eiud Brock $2.3 million to complete two reports, one of which he never finished. I can continue back further. Here we have Jeffrey Epstein involved in multiple sketchy arms transactions from the 1980s. I mean, this is where I genuinely wonder, like, if you're just trying to be a contrarian, do you accept it as a fact that Stephen Hoffenberg, Douglas Leese and Adnan Khashoggi Robert Maxwell, who by the way, is a known Mossad agent, did not have connections with Jeffrey Epstein and which it looks like with a source of his wealth, was used as cutouts for use by the US Intelligence or the US and Israeli intelligence community? The four individuals who I just named are known and linked to multiple sketchy arms deals from the 1980s. Khashoggi, Robert Maxwell, Douglas Leese, Stephen Hoffenberg. They've given on the record statements about their relationship with Epstein. At one point, Epstein is flying on a private jet with Douglas Leese in the 1980s when he's just 28 years old? I mean, I don't know how you can't look at that specifically here about the money, even ignore the sex trafficking and not saying that he did not have connections here to intelligence, or at the very least for cutouts and use as an intelligence asset in the past. I genuinely do not know how you cannot look at that. And specifically where the source of his wealth is complete bullshit. He starts a firm in 1988, J. Epstein and Associates, where he says, I only take on people with a billion dollars. There are only 140, 150 people in the country or in the world at that time who have a billion dollars under management. He's never Been a registered money manager. He has no proven tax record. He called himself a quote, high level bounty hunter when he forms an international assets group. In what way does this not look suspicious? For everything that I have just laid out there and the highest level.

[Host]

I totally get what I totally get.

[Sagar]

I mean, I don't know what we're doing here.

[Host]

Suspicions around this issue.

[Sagar]

But if it's a scary fact, yeah, he was Mossad. That's not how it works, Michael. The CIA doesn't come out and say, yeah, we killed Kennedy, we connect all of the dots. I mean, do you believe then the official. Warren, what you're saying is that because the Warren Commission said that the magic bullet theory is true and we should all follow it in case.

[Host]

Hold on. So now we're gonna go into a detour into the Warren Commission? No, but what I'm saying is you're saying, well, that's this issue, but that's a factual. To like one coherent trainer.

[Sagar]

That's a factual predicate. The war commission.

[Host]

That the primary Epstein accuser is a serial. Fabulous.

[Sagar]

Oh, my God. By the way. By the way, there are two other individuals who have named.

[Krystal]

No.

[Sagar]

Who have named Prince Andrew. Johanna Schoberg and I need to find her name.

[Krystal]

One second.

[Host]

Come on.

[Sagar]

Who's been named here in an affidavit.

[Krystal]

Let me go ahead and get my. But that's the case in particular, you know, Saga laid out the connections with what, four different Israeli.

[Sagar]

Four Israeli prime ministers.

[Krystal]

Prime ministers. You know, how do you assimilate that information? What's your response to that?

[Host]

Sure. First of all, I have to just address the idea that I'm just being arbitrarily contrarian. I can't tell you how many issues I've received that accusation on over the years. Whether it was the Trump Russia story, which contained conspiratorial elements, where I was accused of being a contrarian. Whether it was the 2020 George Floyd riots, which I went around and critically covered the poor media coverage of. I was widely denounced for being a contrarian. I'll give you all the evidence. Whether it was the war in Ukraine. This just happens to be an issue where people, I guess, more on the right now think I'm being a contrarian. And so they're particularly enraged.

[Sagar]

Fair. I should not have impugned your motives, but go ahead.

[Host]

Okay. Yeah, well, so I just don't believe it's not contrarianism to critically cover how media narratives congeal in the absence of what I think to be a reliable factual basis.

[Krystal]

All right, so why is this being linked up with all these.

[Host]

I mean, you had Dave Smith, who I think you guys have had on to discuss this, or you had on as a regular guest, who was at the Talk Talking Points conference and accused Donald Trump of covering up a child sex trafficking or child rape ring. I mean, soccer. Do you think that that was a credible statement? I simply don't.

[Sagar]

I mean, again, I would not.

[Host]

So. So. But let me. Let me address the Israeli. Israeli officials. Okay, so, yes, it's not disputed that Ehud Barak, for instance, was a longtime associate of Epstein. They engaged in some business deals together. Ehud Barak, amazingly enough, was actually present when Epstein was on a media strategizing session with Steve Bannon, where they were planning how he could rehabilitate his image in the wake of the 2018 Miami Herald series. And Bannon was having to educate Epstein about how MeToo had changed cultural attitudes around this stuff. So you couldn't just be as obstinate as maybe you were able to be before in the past in rejecting some of these charges.

[Krystal]

So Steve Bannon was actually pronounced smear the women, basically.

[Host]

Yeah. Yeah. You had to be more sensitive. So Steve Bannon, like, conducted the 16 hours of preparatory interviews with Epstein to kind of tell him how he would be in the Context of the 60 Minutes interview or something on the Israel connection. Yes. Ehud Barak was a longtime associate of Epstein. Epstein had longtime associations with an astonishing array of people. I'm not doubting that he was a consummate bullshitter. He had alliances with, as we know, everybody from Bill Gates to Donald Trump to Bill Clinton over the years. So does it surprise me that some of those people included the Israeli government? No. Or the Saudi arms deal stuff that he was involved in in the 1980s? No. I'm not surprised about any of that. And I'm also allowing for the possibility, as I wrote in that Compact article, that over the course of his bizarre international jet setting, perhaps he did come into contact with somebody who is associated with the Israeli security services and who Barak himself would have been the head of Mossad when he was prime minister. So is it inconceivable he was also.

[Sagar]

The head of military intelligence?

[Host]

Sure. So is it inconceivable that over the course of their meetings, Ehud Barak obtained some piece of information that maybe he passed along to somebody? No, that's not inconceivable at all. I just don't see it as dispositive or as, like, all encompassingly explanatory of Epstein supposedly getting away with this child Sex trafficking ring whose existence I don't regard as having been anywhere near established in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Interestingly, Maureen Comey was the prosecutor who was just fired yesterday and she then tried to prosecute P. Diddy Combs, et cetera, under similar auspices of asserting a sex trafficking ring, but weirdly narrowing the claimed contours of the sex trafficking to two people or one person. So people hear trafficking and they think there must be this sprawling multi layered ring. When in reality the grounds on which Maxwell was convicted was a sex trafficking quote unquote conspiracy that literally consisted of two people, according to the government and according to what the four purported victims in that trial even claimed. Oh, and by the way, those victims in that trial just received multimillion dollar payouts from the Epstein estate and from JP Morgan. And there was a similar Deutsche bank settlement that came out whereby they could confidentially and non adversarily have their claims adjudicated by a mediator. So if you had any tangential connection to Epstein or If I had any tangential connection to Epstein, of course I would work with my lawyers who are gonna get a cut to come up with a story that would entitle me.

[Sagar]

To millions of dollars just like Virginia.

[Host]

Giuffre did to become a multi millionaire where she could purchase luxurious ocean sizes.

[Sagar]

I literally just told you there is another. I had to. I have her name here in my notes. I've got it right here.

[Host]

Were her claims ever adjudicated in a criminal setting document where the latest evidence.

[Sagar]

Standards are Accused Prince Andrew of inappropriate sexual contact while posing for a photo at the Epstein mansion suggesting that she was trafficked there. That's in a sworn affidavit in the very defamation case that you're talking about. Caroline B. Another anonymous individual. But listen, I mean this is my thing. Did you read the Deutsche. Hold on. Did you read the Deutsche bank settlement with the New York. Yes. And what does it say in there? Epstein had multiple financial transactions which broke bank rules in which he's transferring money to Eastern European women for apparent sex trafficking purposes. It's in the fucking report there, Michael. From the New York Financial Services in which they fined the bank for breaking its own policies for sending men wiring money all over the world for apparent purposes after he's a convicted sex offender. I mean, you think he's wiring all of these money for hookers just for himself? Cuz that's not even what they say in the New York Financial Services document regarding the Deutsche bank settlement.

[Host]

If he's wiring this money if he's participating in a trafficking conspiracy to supply minors to others, how is it that over the course of over a decade of incredibly intensive and lucrative litigation, not a single credible allegation of a third party individual having minors trafficking them to has been established? How come after every media outlet at least post 2018, became hugely invested in this story? So you have Netflix documentaries, HBO documentaries, newspaper and magazine articles, podcasts out the wazoo. How come none of them have ever established any third party individual to whom a minor was traffic? Or is it because everybody is just so afraid of offending Bill Clinton, really?

[Sagar]

Well, no, no, but that's not accurate.

[Host]

How come they couldn't extract a lucrative settlement from Bill Clinton?

[Sagar]

Michael, The US Virgin Islands, credibly accused of having a minor traffic the US Virgin Islands. Who has the most evidence around this? Because so many of the heinous accusations, I won't say crime, were committed on their soil. Had an Attorney General who actually was going forward with a lot of this prosecution. What happened to that Attorney General? Michael? They were fired. And the current Attorney General who is in charge of the case, what? You used to work for the Epstein estate. So that seems like a little bit of a cover up and a problem there. No? Especially whenever that's something that happened to have been intersected in the past with exactly the lucrative dispersion of much of the Epstein estate. Attorney General, can I ask you this?

[Host]

Let me ask you this, Sagar.

[Sagar]

Yeah, go ahead.

[Host]

Would you concede that there is a perverse incentive or an incentive for purported self identified victims? Because by the terms of these settlements, all the purported victims have to do is self identify as a victim. They can do so confidentially, meaning they don't have to be cross examined, they don't have to have their claims adversarially scrutinized and then there's no downside reputational risk for them in the event that they're not adjudicated to be bona fide.

[Sagar]

Victims and you know why would you.

[Host]

Agree that there's a perverse incentive in terms of dramatizing claims to maximize one's chances to receive the biggest possible payout? And were you aware that the four people that the that Maureen Comey and her fellow prosecutors had to settle on to bring forward in the Maxwell trial in 2021 receiving multi million dollar payoffs because they were counseled by their attorneys that in order to obtain the biggest possible settlement they should.

[Sagar]

Michael, it sounds like you think Ghislaine Waxell should walk.

[Host]

Does that create a perverse incentive structure Here or not. Am I crazy?

[Sagar]

I agree that.

[Host]

Or am I contrarian?

[Sagar]

I agree that it, quote, could create a perverse incentive structure. At the same time, many of these are legally justifiable because of their proven claim in a court where she was convicted by a jury of her peers in which she was.

[Host]

Did you know that full fledged adults, so not minors adults, were eligible for these payouts? And actually one adult testified at the Maxwell trial, meaning she was above legal age.

[Sagar]

What are you saying? Nobody should ever be able to sue somebody or have legal, you know, have legal justification whenever they are a victim of sex. Like in the case of.

[Host]

Well, if we're talking about child sex, that people who were adults could receive payouts.

[Krystal]

But I mean, are you just.

[Host]

Many years after the.

[Sagar]

No adult should ever be able to sue anybody else and be able to get any money for it for damages? I mean, what are you saying? That our entire legal civil court system is false? And by that standard the ability to claim damages in itself is a perverse incentive. Now, I agree it can be weaponized, but I mean, in the Maxwell case, we agree. Yeah, okay, but then I don't know what to say, Michael. Then you should.

[Host]

For financial gain.

[Sagar]

Yeah. They should support Republicans who want tort reform or whatever the fuck, you know, that all that is.

[Host]

I would support tort reform around this particular issue because it's been so insanely.

[Krystal]

Let me ask. We'll try to close this up. Sagar, a question for you is one of the things that I've seen from people who say, look, there's, we believe Trump and there's no there, there is. They say, well look, if the Democrats had access to this material and Trump is potentially implicated, don't you think they would have released that? What is your response to that claim?

[Sagar]

Me or mine?

[Krystal]

Yeah, you, Sagar.

[Sagar]

Okay, yeah, for me. I mean, look, look, I originally thought that it was actually a decent argument, but considering Trump's behavior now so far, and this is actually where I wonder if Michael would disagree with me. Michael, why don't we just release all of the evidence within the FBI and within whatever the case that has from the Department of Justice, the secret indictment from 2007, which has never yet been made public, that was prior to that non prosecution agreement. Release everything that's in the case file and just show it to the American public and we can all make up our minds. I mean, that's where maybe you'll be vindicated, Michael. Maybe it won't show any of this.

[Host]

Release everything. I don't know why I agree with Dershowitz.

[Sagar]

Okay, good.

[Host]

Dershowitz said, for the past 10 years, look, release everything. I waive any right to privacy. I've been falsely accused. I'm gonna be vindicated. So I want maximum disclosure. I'm in favor of that. But there are two judges in New York who are keeping materials under seal. You know why? To protect the purported victims mainly, maybe to protect others who could be defamed by those victims. So if people wanna go lobby, I mean, Breaking Point should go lobby in the Southern District of New York for disclosure of the files that remain under seal. But I think the fact that Dan Bongino, I mean, Tagger, would you agree with me that Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and all these people obviously dangled these tantalizing little tidbits in front of the right wing social media audience on the idea that Trump was gonna storm into office with his most loyal, tenacious soldiers and expose the deep state demonic sex trafficking Democrats. And that whole narrative was obviously politically expedient bullshit that they very cleverly used to gin up excitement to vote Republican in 2024. And it wouldn't necessarily translate to any concrete revelations once.

[Sagar]

I will agree.

[Host]

The idea that there was a consolidated Epstein list that the DOJ has in some vault somewhere that they could just release was always kind of like confabulation to get people all exercised.

[Sagar]

I'm on the record here, Michael. I completely agree with you for the political expedience purposes, but I don't agree that it's bullshit when I've also said it's a canard to say that there's some Epstein client list where it's like, hey, fuck, the kid now supports Israel. That's not the way the document work. Look, I'm not here to defend Kash Patel. I agree with you completely that the way that they frame. Look, there's two options. They either ginned it up and exploited perhaps what they claim is the rape of thousands of children or hundreds of victims or whatever for politically expedient purposes. Or they did that, which is disgusting. Or they are covering up said thing, which is equally disgusting. Perhaps more so. Actually on the last.

[Host]

I would love for them. I totally agree. I would love for the maximum amount of material to come out. Because you know what? Virginia Gucci disagrees, who you happily conceded was a serial fabulous.

[Sagar]

No, I didn't say that. I said that she's a troubled woman who, yes, has been proven to have lied.

[Host]

So now you don't agree that she's.

[Sagar]

A serial fabulous going to use Your level of framing, which I actually do frankly think is disgusting because it points her as the central character which you've self appointed. It ignores the other individuals.

[Host]

She's the one who introduced the whole sex trafficking theory.

[Sagar]

Yes.

[Host]

2014, with a photo of Prince Andrew.

[Krystal]

I just always get.

[Sagar]

The photo exists. The photo exists.

[Host]

Okay? So, I mean, I agree that the maximum disclosure should be made and that these concealments that are still in place to protect the supposed accusers, many of whom are serial fabulous, but yet received enormous payouts from these settlement funds that.

[Sagar]

Don'T even scrutinize claims.

[Host]

Because when that scrutiny was applied to Virginia Giuffre, as more and more information had to be revealed, she had to concede that she just made an enormous amount of stuff.

[Krystal]

We got the Virginia Giuffrey.

[Host]

So I think that would probably pertain to other people. Yes.

[Sagar]

She lived in such a life of expedient luxury. You know, it's just whatever, all right, she didn't live.

[Host]

She did not live a life of luxury. She didn't have an ocean front mansion in Australia and a ranch. And she didn't make.

[Sagar]

She didn't make $15 million. Suicide, bro. Like, yeah, this is what I'm saying.

[Krystal]

Like, let me.

[Sagar]

It was so. It was so great for her that she decided to enter. I mean, I don't know.

[Host]

Well, yeah, because she had domestic. Because she got. According to her estranged husband, she became increasingly violent and attacked him. The local Australian authorities agreed with the husband. And then she lost custody of her children and became distraught.

[Krystal]

I mean, could that maybe reflect on.

[Host]

Her cred, why she was not called as a witness in the Maxwell trial?

[Sagar]

That reflects to me, somebody, a pattern of behavior of somebody who was obviously, in my opinion, abused whenever she was young and as a child. And that's.

[Host]

Did she lack credibility?

[Krystal]

So, Michael, let me wrap up with.

[Host]

She obviously did. Sagra. I know it's like, it's difficult to admit because.

[Sagar]

I'm not gonna sit here and besmirch somebody who killed herself and who obviously was a troubled individual, prominent.

[Host]

Individual for almost a decade.

[Sagar]

Okay. Your feelings are clear. So are mine. All right, go ahead, Michael.

[Krystal]

A final question here for you. How do you explain the fact that you had the Trump administration go from the big influencer Phase one, Epstein files coming out. We're reviewing Pam Bondi's. I'm reviewing thousands of hours of footage to two page memo, nothing to see here. We're moving on. Case closed. Opposed to Trump now saying, well, there are files that were created by Obama and Hillary and Comey and Brennan and it's all a hoax and that everyone needs to move on and there's nothing to see here. So how do you explain his specifically changing narrative of what's going on here and the fact that obviously it seems bizarre the way he's handling this in the worst possible way just for him politically, let alone anything else?

[Host]

Well, I think people in the right wing media universe are charlatans and they exploit their charlatanism to politically expediently cater to this longstanding belief that we're talking about Trump specifically. No, I know, I got it. But it leads into Trump, meaning there is like a pervasive ever present belief within right wing media circles whom Trump harnesses for political power that there's a pedophilic sex trafficking ring that's perpetually waiting to be uncovered. That's why they were so into QAnon Pizza Gate and that kind of transferred over in part to Epstein. Well, it explains it in that, like, why did Pam Bondi, in that now notorious February 2025 interview with Fox News, say she had the Epstein files waiting on her desk? Because there was an incentive within this milieu to dangle the most appetizing little snippets in front of the audience. Like the beating heart of right wing social media and comment sections always believes that the triumphant anti deep state warriors in the Trump administration are finally going to unveil the true heart of evil at the core of elite networks and expose the pedophiles. Patel said, put on your big boy pants and tell us who the pedophiles are. And so Bondi was kind of playing into that assumption and she used like imprecise language. Are these people charlatans? You're not getting an argument from me. I was trying to make this argument like last year when they were pumping out this stuff for their own electoral advantage. Now, I will say, is there a possibility that there are some additional materials somewhere that could be embarrassing to Trump? Of course we know that he was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's for like 15 years. Jeffrey Epstein is on tape that was released by Michael Wolfe saying, I'm Donald Trump's closest friend or I was his closest friend. Now, could that be puffery by Epstein who loved to exaggerate his intentions?

[Krystal]

Why don't Trump also said he knew him for 15 years, so.

[Host]

Yeah, exactly. So, I mean, so there could be something that is embarrassing on Trump somewhere in the archives here. That wouldn't be surprising at all. Michael Wolf claims that Epstein displayed to him like pictures or Polaroid photos of Trump sitting around with like topless young women or something. There was no claim that those women in the photos were minors. But, like, Trump was also in these modeling circles. That's how he met Melania. Right. And Epstein also.

[Sagar]

Michael, Michael, I just gotta point out, man, this is the same hearsay that you're indicting. The intelligence quote. You're like, Michael Wolff, by the way, Michael Wolfe is a fucking serial. Fabulous. Are we gonna sit here and not say that he literally made shit up in his book In Fury. Like, why is it that the secondhand account here from Michael Wolff. No, I'm not saying. No, but it is. Now you're talking.

[Host]

Oh, he's not saying it's a sponsor.

[Sagar]

Topless woman.

[Host]

I'm not saying.

[Sagar]

It's just.

[Host]

By the way, it's not hearsay for Michael Wolf to say. I was shown this photo. Like, he could testify in court to that. He couldn't testify in court that he was told by somebody that somebody else told him.

[Sagar]

Michael Wolf.

[Host]

They spoke to Alex Acosta two years prior to that. So it's a different level of hearsay. I'm not saying it's dispositive.

[Sagar]

It's reporting. Yeah, fine.

[Host]

But Michael Wolf has shown that he has recordings of Epstein. Yeah, he has hours of tape.

[Sagar]

Vicky Ward has multiple quotes on the record. Why is she a worse report, by the way? Vicky Ward 10 times claiming that Trump.

[Host]

Is a sexual predator. I'm trying to. So I'm arguing against that assumption now. That has overtaken these popular assumptions. All right, so I mean, I'm not trying to argue that Trump is a sexual predator.

[Sagar]

I agree with that. But I'm saying you're willing to take hearsay and reporting from other people when it's convenient for you.

[Host]

Here's the Occam's razor that I tend to use with Trump. Obviously, he'll just launder whatever bullshit he can to get through a current controversy. And the way that he's handled this issue is really amazing. I mean, I mean, now he's like voluntarily bringing it up when he calls into these right wing Real America's Voice shows and saying Epstein hoax, he's disowning his supporters over it. So obviously, I don't know, does he have the presence of mind to know how to negotiate this story in a way that is befitting him? Maybe not. I mean, he's 78 years old now, so that could be an explanation. It is interesting to me that never once do you hear Trump. Trump expressed sympathy for the Quote unquote victims. Like a traditional politician would say, we sympathize with the victims. They've been through trauma. We're not gonna re traumatize them. This horrible person, Epstein was a pedophile. Disgrace and whatever. Like, Trump doesn't even make any perfunctory gestures along those lines. He just like goes nuclear now on his own supporters. So is he handling this artfully? No. But like, I think there are, there are some more simple explanations than that means he's covering up the child rape ring that people accused Democrats of covering up and now Trump is following suit. I just don't find that to be that plausible.

[Krystal]

All right, Michael, thank you. Appreciate your time.

[Host]

One more thing, like, okay, I know this guy. A little heated. Genuinely nothing personal against Sager. I mean, I'm waiting for the avalanche of comments denouncing me. And that's fine. Fine.

[Krystal]

To quote whoever it was, Dan Bongino, I think we all have our big boy pants on here. So no worries.

[Sagar]

It's all good, brother.

[Krystal]

See you later, Michael. Good to see you. Thank you.

[Sagar]

Thanks so much for watching, guys. We appreciate it. We will see you all tomorrow for the Friday show.

[PayPal Advertiser]

Every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations every day.

[Belvita Advertiser]

Has a to do list. But adding Enjoy Belvita to yours can help you knock out the rest of it. Belvita Breakfast biscuits are a tasty and convenient breakfast option when paired with low fat yogurt and fruit that provide steady energy all morning while Belvita Energy Snack bites give you the perfect mid morning refuel. Best part, they both both taste great. So make the most out of your morning with a bite of Velveeta. Pick up a pack of Velveeta at your local store today.

[Chumba Casino Advertiser]

Step into the world of power, loyalty and luck. I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse with family. Cannolis and spins mean everything. Now you want to get mixed up in the family business. Introducing the [e-mail] test your luck in the shadowy world of the Godfather slot. Someday I will call upon you to do a service for me. Play the Godfather now at chumbacasino. Com. Welcome to the family.

[Host]

No purchase necessary. VGW Group void where prohibited by law. 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

[PayPal Advertiser]

This is an I Heart podcast.