C (3:41)

I just want to go over a couple more exchanges. There's the series of emails between Epstein and the American journalist and author Michael Wolf about Trump. And months before Epstein was eventually arrested, Epstein says to Wolf about Trump, of course he knew about the girls, as he asked Ghislaine to stop. Democrats are using this to suggest that Trump may have intervened in some way or was at the very least, aware of the fact that there were underage victims. And then there's another exchange between Epstein and Wolf. In 2015, just before a scheduled presidential debate, Wolf tells Epstein that CNN plans to ask Trump about the nature of their relationship. During the debate, Epstein responds with, quote, if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be? And Wolf says, quote, let him hang himself if he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house that give currency. There's a lot that jumps out at me about this one. Questions about Wolf and Epstein and how this question would have even made it to Wolf before a debate. But also, as you were saying, this level of coordination that Epstein himself was involved in concerning the question of his and Trump's relationship. And just like, how about you? How are you thinking about. About that one?

B (4:58)

Yeah, I totally agree with what you're saying regarding the interesting sort of communication between Epstein and ostensibly a journalist when it seems like they're more engag strategizing. And I think what's very fascinating about this email is that there's been speculation for a very long time that perhaps Epstein was involved in blackmailing people because he had the knowledge of people's, you know, transgressions and illegal activities related to the sexual abuse of minors. He had this island, he had these apartments, he had these connections where, you know, he was said to be facilitating sex trafficking. So would one someone in a position like that be able to use it to compromise people? And, you know, this exchange with Wolf, it doesn't prove that, but it's another data point which is suggestive of the fact that they had considered things like this at least.

C (5:57)

I know that journalists are still, still sorting through what's in the rest of these documents that the Republicans dropped. But some of it that has come out so far as is pretty wild. There's an email that shows a former New York Times reporter tipped off Epstein that another journalist was looking into him. Messages where Epstein positions himself as an advisor to foreign officials, like suggesting that he could give the Russian foreign minister insight into dealing with Trump, mentioning he'd had similar conversations with Russia's ambassador to the United nations, and talking politics with people like Steve Bannon, promising him these one on ones with government leaders in 2018 when he was still advising Trump. I know that there's a lot there, but, you know, when you look at kind of this information that's coming out, does it give us a clearer picture of just how deep Epstein ties actually went, just how kind of enmeshed he was in all of. In all of this globally?

B (6:59)

So, you know, I think there's two important points about this. First of all, the emails, just what we see right now, they do look really bad. They have a lot of damning information, seemingly about a lot of people. Epstein, very fascinatingly what I found is that he seemed to have far more connections around the world with powerful people than I think one person would be able to organically generate. There seemed to be something almost inorganic about the level of access he had to political officials at all levels, in very geographically disparate parts of the world, powerful business magnates all around the world and so forth. It seems difficult to be able to generate that on one's own. That's just my interpretation. And secondly, I do find something interesting about these disclosures, which is that in a way, what they're disclosing is very important. But on the other hand, they seem to sort of elide broader questions. So it points a lot to Epstein's involvement in sex trafficking. And that's a really horrifying and important story that should be known and should be focused on. But there's another aspect to Epstein, which is his ties to foreign governments and intelligence agencies. How he developed those ties, what he used those ties for, what his interests were, on whose behalf he worked, what were the consequences of those interactions. That aspect in the story has not really been focused on a lot. And it's not to say that the sex trafficking part is a distraction, because that's also an extremely important part on its own. I think the two have to be understood in. In conjunction with one another. But without the other aspect of the story, which I think we have insufficient transparency about, insufficient focus on, I don't think that the whole picture of who Epstein was and what he was doing, it really becomes clear. And I would just quote by analogizing it to the metaphor of, you know, a bunch of blind people touching an elephant. They're all touching a different part of the elephant, but they can't really understand the full elephant. And so, you know, that that picture is clear. And I think that's the issue with Epstein now. We're all having fragmentary parts of the story, and that's not true transparency. And in some ways, it can also be a distraction.

C (9:11)

Well, when you say that, you think it's kind of inorganic, right? That was the word that you used, that he would have that level of access, that you do not think that he could do it on his own to all of these world leaders and powerful people. Like, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that you think that the emails are exaggerated or not true, or are you talking about something else here?

B (9:35)

Yeah, no, what I mean is that, you know, if you look at these emails as well, in separate backing with emails that have been released through other channels showing this range and scope of Epstein's access, it's interesting because he is technically a private citizen, but political officials at the highest level all over the world are seeking his access and support. Government officials, again, all over the world are seeking his access and support. And yet he has no position that would seem to justify this level of influence. He's not a government official. He's not a powerful business magnate per se. He was someone who was a math teacher who worked in finance for a little small time in Wall Street. And he just seemed to be this gentleman who everyone seemed to nonetheless want to gain the support of. And if you look at his interactions with people as well, two very powerful people we reported on, heads of state, billionaires, oligarchs, they were all seeking his approval, they were seeking his attention and so forth. So, you know, something doesn't add up in the description of who he was or who we're told to understand who he was and the influence and access that he enjoyed. There's a disconnect there, which is important. Part of the story we have not yet gotten.

D (11:05)

Look, it's hard being the pop culture friend. You're the one who knows exactly what new show is the most watched show on Netflix right now, or you're on top of the film festival calendar whether you are that friend or you desperately need a friend like that, Allow Commotion to enter your group chat if you It's a podcast hosted by me, El Amin Abdul Mahmoud, where I talk to people about the arts and entertainment stories that you need to know and we share all the recommendations of what you should be reading or watching or listening to. Find Commotion wherever you get your podcasts.

C (11:35)

I think this is maybe a good place for us to get into some of your reporting on the links between Jeffrey Epstein, Israeli intelligence services and the State of Israel more broadly. And it does bring some new light to this part of the Epstein story, particularly his relationship to a senior Israeli intelligence officer and longtime aide to the former Israeli PM and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. And can you walk me through some of what you have discovered?

B (12:04)

So a few years ago there was a hack that took place of a number of Israeli political officials and military officials. Among them was Ebud Barak, the former Defense Minister and Israeli Prime Minister. And those emails, it seems that the hack likely took place in 2016. That's roughly around the time the emails cut off, but they were done by what was described as the profile studying hacking group. We don't know the full identity of them, but they're speculating to maybe have ties to Iran and dumped online. And then they were later hosted by a file sharing website called Distributed Denial of Secrets. It's like a successor organization at WikiLeaks in a way. And there the emails are currently on that website, sitting there alongside many other disclosures from different parts of the world. And the emails in Barack's inbox, they show extensive contacts with Epstein between the period of 2012, 2016, roughly. And they show that Epstein and Barack had been very closely involved in helping Barack promote Israeli security interests and economic interests than different parts of the world. And Epstein was somebody who had extensive contacts in Africa, in Central Asia, in Europe, in Russia and the United States. And he was making connections for Barack to help him promote technology firms to these foreign countries as a means of accomplishing numerous things. First of all, generating revenue for Barack, the private consultant now leaving public life, but also furthering the interests of these firms and also finally the political interests of the Israeli government. What would happen is that Epstein would introduce Barak to people around the world in Mongolia, Cote d'. Ivoire, these are a couple of countries we've heard about already. We have more stories coming about this. Barack would sign deals with these countries with Epstein's coaching and guidance. And then later those private deals would become the seed for formal security arrangements signed by the Israeli government and these foreign governments, which furthered the country's political interests. But the core of it all was Epstein. And I think that it's really important to understand the current government disclosures, which again, I think are a bit fragmentary and don't necessarily make sense on their own in conjunction with these emails. Because the emails show structurally what they were trying to accomplish and who Epstein was as a critical node for Barack and others as an international deal maker, so to speak. He had the money, he had the connections. And those emails really helped to make sense of the government disclosures which are taking place right now, you know, on their own. They don't always explain the whole story. I think we have to look at what's out there from other channels that they didn't control in conjunction with that, and then we can get a fuller picture.

C (14:50)

It's really interesting. I mean, there is this mythology right around Epstein as some kind of quasi agent working on behalf of a foreign government that's been around since the beginning of the story that he was not just a sexual predator with elite connections, but this go between in intelligence. And let me ask you plainly, do you think that Jeffrey Epstein was an asset of some kind, whether formally or informally, of the Israeli intelligence service or of some other intelligence service?

B (15:22)

Well, you know, this is a question which has been asked for a long time and even before current reporting was, did Jeffrey Epstein work for the Mossad? I think the answer is no. He did not work for Israeli intelligence, but he did work with Israeli intelligence and the intelligence agencies of other countries as well too. I think that, you know, it's difficult to sort of define, but he seemed like somebody who was above working for an intelligence agency. He was someone whom intelligence agencies relied upon for his influence and power. He furthered the interests of certain states, including the Israeli state, and he ideologically invested in that too, as far as private communications. But he was certainly not someone who was answerable to the Israeli government per se or employed by the Israeli intelligence, as far as any information that we have suggests. But, you know, that said, it would almost, if I were to put it in a kind of crude way, it kind of seemed like in practical effect, the Mossad worked for Jeffrey Epstein rather than vice versa. Because these Israeli intelligence linked firm that he was helping Barak to deploy around the world were clearly lower than him on the hierarchy of these interactions. And even Barak, who was one of the most influential people in the Israeli security establishment at that time, if you look at their communications, he was trying to get the Attention of Epstein support Epstein rather than vice versa.

C (17:06)

This, this narrative, you know, that he is some kind of big intelligence player has been widely referred to as a conspiracy theory. And this new reporting of yours has not been picked up by mainstream American press really at all. And like, why do you think that is?

B (17:24)

Well, you know, this is an ongoing issue that I think myself and my colleagues have encountered. We've done a lot of reporting around the world, you know, which has been verified by high level government officials and does cause a lot of controversy in some cases, but oftentimes because politically inconvenience, it's not always acknowledged, or if a certain narrative is already anchored that something is a conspiracy or it's beyond the realm of possibility to discuss. There's, you know, a investment, I guess, in not acknowledging it when the contravening information comes to light. And presently I think that the issue with the Epstein story is that it's being pigeonholed as part of the ongoing domestic political disputes in the United States between President Donald Trump and his opponents. And, you know, Donald Trump's involvement in this is very important, but it seems that there's just not an incentive to discuss this issue of his intelligence ties. If I were to speculate, I would suggest there's a few reasons for this. One is that a very broad range of powerful individuals are implicated in ties with Epstein. I'll put it this way, when we do reporting, the same name seems to be coming up a lot, and not just about Epstein, but other subjects as well, too. We're working on a story right now about Epstein's ties to a certain African country. The names that come up in that story also were very prominent in another story, myself, my colleagues did about corruption in Pakistan a few months ago. But, you know, it's a small, kind of relatively small community of people who are connected around the world who were implicated in this corruption, for whom this story is very injurious and raises uncomfortable questions. And, you know, there's a small Venn diagram of people who have the capacity and the willingness to report on this. But you know, there's a lot of people who it would just be very difficult to report on. So not very hard. It's a technically challenging task to report these emails. And if someone does have the resources, they may not have the clinical willingness. So I think that's kind of what adds up to that. And yeah, you know, I think that we shouldn't make assertions and believe things that lack evidence, but I do think that we do have evidence for something we need to update our beliefs. So I hope that there is for this reporting a greater incentive by the quote, unquote, mainstream media to look into the subject more.

C (19:41)

I mean, I guess depending on which direction this all heads in the US you could get additional kind of records and information out of this too. Right. To kind of not just focus on the Trump stuff, but all this broader stuff that you're talking about too. Right. And just can you explain to me what's actually happening in the United States right now around whether or not more records are going to be released? It centers around this thing called a discharge position. I think is it's like a rare parliamentary mechanism.

B (20:15)

Yeah. So there's an effort in US Congress to try to force more disclosures about Epstein.

E (20:21)

Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva sworn in after a seven week delay, signing on to the petition to force a vote on the file's release as her first act in Congress.

C (20:31)

I will sign, sign the discharge petition.

A (20:33)

Right now to release the Epstein files.

B (20:37)

And it comes down to the broader heading of Epstein files. I do think that there's something about these disclosures which there's so much political interest in gaining short term political advantage out of whatever they contain that I'm not totally certain whether it's actually aimed at furthering public transparency about the subject, period.

E (21:01)

In an attempt to stop the petition, top White House and Justice Department officials, including the Attorney General and FBI director, attempting to pressure Congresswoman Lauren Boebert into removing her name from it. Meeting with her Wednesday in the Situation Room. But it didn't work. Boebert ultimately one of four Republicans who signed on in support.

B (21:21)

You know, there's a term, a term of art called the limited hangouts that I think was coined by Richard Nixon. And it refers to a very damaging political subject which public is demanding information about and public officials feel pressured to respond to, but they do not want to give the whole story, but they will give a part of the story in the hopes that that will satiate public attention while leaving the crux of the matter still private. So, you know, I will wait for these disclosures and I do hope that any disclosure we get does help because it's more puzzle pieces. We put together a broader picture. But I don't bank everything on this disclosure happening. And when it does happen, you know, I will still be skeptical as to what not been received. With the passage of time and the diminishment of the, you know, urgent political salience of issues, we do tend to learn more about historical episodes. Jeffrey Epstein died, maybe Five, six years ago. It wasn't really that long ago. And as we discussed, the issues of political issues he raised are still relevant to contemporary politics. And that disincentivizes people from being honest and transparent about this at the moment.

C (22:33)

And just one last one before you go, I'd be curious to know what you make of this push that we've been seeing around Ghislaine Maxwell. You know, it was just revealed that she is working on her commutation application. Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out the fact that he could negotiate a deal with Maxwell that could see her released early from federal prison. But like, you see people in the Magaverse influencers, for example, starting to call themselves free Ghislaine advocates, they kind of see her as like the Rosetta Stone. They feel like she is this well of information that should be tapped. And like, how are you thinking about, how do you think about that? Or do you see it kind of in the same way as you do these documents that are being released?

B (23:26)

Well, you know, anyone speaking more or giving us some information is helpful. And, you know, she obviously is somebody who is integral to the sex trafficking that Epstein was involved. And I just find the whole issue with her commentation and the discussion of it to be so glaring in what seems to be just ranked corruption at this point. I think that it's unfortunate that the MAGA movement has been crystallized as almost a cult of personality in some ways around Trump furthering whatever his short term political interests are. I think it's a degradation of what people hope to see out of any anti establishment political candidate. And I assume that this commutation will come alongside significant concessions made by Maxwell to Trump, perhaps regarding these historical ties between Trump and Epstein. So, you know, I view it all as sort of a very complicated political chess game which is going on. And I think that once the disclosures happen more of them and once maybe if Maxwell is commuted and once you see it after, we can try to put together what they discuss thereafter. But I don't have any short term hope that this will result in any greater transparency.

C (24:40)

Okay, Murtaza, this was really, really interesting. Thank you so much for coming by.

B (24:45)

Thank you so much for paying attention and for helping bring her more public insight to the subject.

C (24:59)

All right, that is all for today. Front Burner was produced this week by Joytha Sengupta, Matt Muse, Matthew Omha, Lauren Donnelly and MacKenzie Cambridge. Our YouTube producer is John Lee. Our music is by Joseph Chabasin. Our senior producer is Elaine Chao. Our executive producer is Nick McKay Blocos. And I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you on Monday.

D (25:31)

For more CBC Podcasts, go to CBC CA Podcasts.