Ep 357 | Mike Johnson Is Holding the Government Hostage over the Epstein Files | Guest: Rep. Thomas Massie

Summary

Kibbe on Liberty Ep 357: “Mike Johnson Is Holding the Government Hostage over the Epstein Files”

Guest: Rep. Thomas Massie
Host: Matt Kibbe
Date: October 29, 2025
Duration: ~56 minutes

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Matt Kibbe continues his in-depth conversation with Rep. Thomas Massie, focusing on Massie’s controversial effort to force a vote to release the names in the Epstein files via a rare Congressional discharge petition. The discussion covers Rep. Massie's campaign for government transparency, the political resistance he’s facing (including from Speaker Mike Johnson), and broader questions on foreign influence, particularly regarding Israel and its effect on US politics and foreign policy. The conversation blends Massie’s first-hand Congressional insights with candid, often provocative, exchanges about the suppression of information, pressure campaigns within Congress, and the cross-party establishment's stakes in keeping Epstein-related secrets.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Epstein Files Discharge Petition and Congressional Stalemate

• [01:13–05:23]
  • Matt Kibbe theorizes that the only reason Speaker Mike Johnson hasn’t reconvened the House is to block Massie's discharge petition that would force the release of Epstein files.
  • Massie explains: House leadership is preventing the swearing-in of a new Democrat member, thus halting progress on the discharge petition which requires 218 signatures.
    • “He’s keeping the clock from moving, and he’s keeping a congressional district in Arizona from being represented.” — Massie [02:57]
  • Pro forma sessions count toward the required seven legislative days before a vote, but the Speaker could swear in the new member during these, choosing not to for political reasons.

2. Political and Institutional Resistance to Releasing Epstein Files

• [05:23–08:15]

  • Massie points out that Johnson’s use of a shutdown as an excuse for recess is unprecedented.

  • Opposition from all sides—even Trump—confounds Massie, given years of Republican rhetoric demanding transparency on Epstein.

  • Survivors and their advocates have provided at least 20 suspect names. The White House called GOP support for Massie's petition a "hostile act," placing immense pressure on signers like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace.

    “The pressure is, when you get down to that one last house on the block that hasn't sold... The price is high. And all three of them are paying a large political price to represent their constituents and these survivors.” — Massie [08:11]

3. The Human Cost and Systemic Evil of Epstein’s Trafficking

• [09:23–13:00]

  • Massie describes the traumatic testimonies of Epstein’s survivors—some coerced into trafficking other girls in exchange for getting out of abuse.

    • The process led to lifelong shame, discouraging victims from coming forward, while the accused remain shielded by power and wealth.

  • Survivors face the threat of devastating defamation suits if they accuse rich, litigious perpetrators.

    “I didn't really fully grasp how evil this is. Like, it's one thing to do evil things to people, but to make them do evil things.” — Massie [11:10]

4. Congressional Manipulation: Blocking Hearings and Delaying Justice

• [13:00–16:18]

  • The House recess halts not just Epstein votes but also hearings, e.g., the Attorney General cannot be made to testify, further stalling accountability.

    “It’s very convenient. It drags that out… So the speaker is having a recess, not just to avoid the impending vote on this issue, but to avoid any hearings whatsoever where this issue would come up.” — Massie [14:05]

• Massie tried to leverage limited committee time to push for information about Epstein’s intelligence connections and the integrity of FBI records.

  “There is a CIA file on Jeffrey Epstein that I want to see… Like, you're suspiciously uncurious about that.” — Massie [15:35]

5. Word Games and Evasion from Federal Agencies

• [16:50–18:13]

  • FBI and DOJ use subjective terms like “credible evidence” to avoid admitting the existence of other perpetrators—deflecting responsibility and masking political manipulation.

    “Credible is a politician word. It's not something you would use in a courtroom, I don't think.” — Massie [18:10]

• Speech or Debate Clause shields Massie from retaliation or defamation lawsuits when speaking in Congress, explaining why he named a single suspect publicly.

6. Why the Sudden Opposition? Motivation of Politicians and the ‘Uni Party’

• [22:13–25:46]

  • Kibbe raises the theory that Trump opposes release not because he’s implicated, but to protect embarrassment among associates or under pressure from intelligence agencies, particularly with connections to Israel.

  • Bipartisan or “Uni Party” reluctance reflects protection of elite reputations rather than ideological grounds.

    “Once you get to billionaire level, you transcend the whole party game. You're just, you're rich enough to influence whoever is in power.” — Massie [23:10]

• Former Israeli Prime Minister/Ehud Barak’s ties to Epstein also potentially motivate secrecy.

7. Political Reality: Hall Passes, Pressure, and Historical Precedent

• [26:26–31:23]

  • Party leadership may grant “hall passes”—private permission for some members to vote against leadership for political cover.

  • Massie and Khanna’s discharge petition is extraordinarily rare (only 20 have succeeded), making the attempt both controversial and notable. Khanna’s Rules Committee effort inspired Massie to pursue this unusual legislative maneuver.

    “I'm literally going to get a bill passed in the hardest way possible. It's only been done 20 times in the history of Congress and I'm about to pull it off.” — Massie [31:30]

8. Epstein, Israel, and Foreign Influence: The Nexus

• [32:28–39:48]

  • Kibbe suggests the fight over Epstein files proxies deeper issues—America’s relationship with Israel and foreign influence on policy.

  • Massie details the three billionaires targeting him for defeat—Miriam Adelson (dual citizen, major GOP donor), Paul Singer (media influence, major donor), and John Paulson (in Epstein’s book but not necessarily guilty). Their involvement illustrates the “small universe” of interlocking political and financial interests.

  • Media smear campaigns exploit tenuous associations, while ignoring connections to genuinely powerful interests.

    “The people that control the newspaper that's writing the hit piece are the same people that want the war to go on are the same people trying to take me out are friends and co donors with people who knew Jeffrey Epstein…” — Massie [38:20]

9. Massie’s Consistent Anti-Interventionism & the Israel Lobby

• [39:48–45:36]

  • Massie reiterates: He has always opposed ALL foreign aid, not just for Israel, calling for “non-intervention.”

  • US support for the war in Gaza is heavily orchestrated by lobbying, with speeches by Netanyahu presented as PR events for both American and Israeli domestic audiences.

  • Foreign lobbying—especially by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee)—largely escapes proper foreign agent registration and transparency.

    “I think we should have country of origin labeling on our political donations and campaigns in the United States. Which country or which countries lobby.” — Massie [43:12]

• Congress members like Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene explicitly refuse to meet with foreign lobbyists of any kind.

10. Polling, Political Shifts, and Attack Ads

• [45:36–51:00]

  • Polls in Massie’s Kentucky district show declining support for US aid to Israel among Republicans—a trend for over a decade.

  • Attack ads against Massie are primarily on unrelated social issues (e.g., transgender sports), often funded by donors supporting opposite positions—media manipulation at play.

    “That’s the dude who’s the biggest donor... funding the ads saying that I'm for that thing that he's for and that it’s a bad thing. Obviously I’m not for it. But that's the kind of duplicitous tactics they use.” — Massie [52:20]

11. Outsider Status, Grassroots Support, and Political Isolation

• [53:07–55:56]

  • Attacks from the establishment are increasing Massie’s grassroots support—elevating his message and increasing fundraising.

  • He acknowledges his pariah status, sharing the title of “most hated” in D.C. with Marjorie Taylor Greene for their refusal to bend on principle.

  • Commentary on the disconnect between the political class and voters—being principled is now considered anomalous.

    “When you are singular and hold a position that is the majority position in the Republican Party, but you're the only Republican in Washington D.C. holding that position, you're going to find a lot of support.” — Massie [54:18]

    “If there's an issue, you know, that everybody's pretty well informed on and they are 80% in support of it, and you come here to Washington, D.C. and you support that as well, it doesn't mean you're running for president. It just means you're doing your damn job.” — Massie [55:35]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Congressional shutdown and its motive:
  “Not only are we shut down, we're in recess. And that's unconventional, unprecedented in the 13 years I've been in Congress.” — Massie [05:18]

• On the persistent pressure on discharge petition signers:
  “All three of them are paying a large political price to represent their constituents and these survivors.” — Massie [08:11]

• On Epstein survivors and systemic evil:
  “I didn't really fully grasp how evil this is... to make them do evil things. And then once he causes you to be implicated, then you don't want to come out because then that's what happens to you.” — Massie [11:10]

• On political word games:
  “Credible is a politician word. It's not something you would use in a courtroom, I don't think.” — Massie [18:10]

• On entrenched interests and bipartisanship:
  “Once you get to billionaire level, you transcend the whole party game...” — Massie [23:10]

• On being accused of ineffectiveness while making history:
  “I'm literally going to get a bill passed in the hardest way possible. It's only been done 20 times in the history of Congress and I'm about to pull it off.” — Massie [31:30]

• On lobbying and foreign influence:
  “I think we should have country of origin labeling on our political donations and campaigns in the United States.” — Massie [43:12]

• On holding principles in a hostile political environment:
  “When you are singular and hold a position that is the majority position in the Republican Party, but you're the only Republican in Washington D.C. holding that position, you're going to find a lot of support.” — Massie [54:18]

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:13] – Massie discusses the Congressional stalemate (House not being reconvened; Epstein petition)
• [05:23] – Massie on unprecedented Congressional recess/shutdown tactics
• [08:15] – Pressure campaign against discharge petition signers
• [09:23] – Survivor testimonies and the mechanics of Epstein’s coercion
• [13:00] – Hearings and oversight delayed by Speaker’s tactics
• [16:50] – Agency evasion and “credible evidence” word games
• [18:13] – Speech or Debate Clause protects Massie’s disclosures
• [22:13] – Kibbe and Massie discuss Trump’s motives and bipartisan elite protection
• [26:26] – Hall passes, party pressure, and discharge petition history
• [32:28] – Kibbe: Is this a proxy fight for the US-Israel relationship?
• [33:03] – Massie details the billionaires waging political war against him
• [39:48] – Massie’s consistent anti-intervention foreign policy
• [45:36] – Polls show declining Republican support for Israel aid
• [53:07] – Attacks galvanizing Massie’s grassroots support
• [54:18] – The loneliness of holding the majority’s position in DC

---

Takeaways for New Listeners

This episode pulls back the curtain on the rarely discussed mechanisms of Congressional obstruction and internal party warfare, all unfolding around the explosive question of Epstein's powerful clients. Rep. Massie blends deep procedural knowledge, raw survivor testimony, and unapologetic critique of US-Israel relations and lobbying power, making for a bracing listen—especially for those unconvinced by official narratives from either party. The stakes—a Congress that resists transparency and a political system addicted to foreign entanglements—are felt on every level, channeled through Massie’s iconoclastic voice and Kibbe’s probing libertarian questioning.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to Kibbe on Liberty. In the second half of my marathon conversation with Congressman Thomas Massie, we're going to talk about why he thinks he will succeed on the Epstein discharge petition releasing those names, why he is opposed to the war in Gaza, and why the Israel first lobby is spending millions of dollars trying to unseat him in his district in Northern Kentucky. Check it out. Welcome to Kibbe on Liberty. Okay, Congressman, we're at part two of our government lockdown marathon. Finally, the government's lockdown instead of the American people. I guess that's a win.

[B]

I think so.

[A]

And we did. We just did a very deep dive on the beef industrial complex and what market reforms we could do to free American cattle ranchers to produce more American beef. And I want to get into some more spicy topics. You're kind of. I don't know if you know this, but you're a bit of a pariah in this town because you're constantly causing trouble. And my theory is that the primary reason Speaker Mike Johnson has not reconvened the House is because the first thing that's going to happen is he's going to swear in a 218th vote that you need with Ro Khanna to force a discharge petition on the Epstein files. Is that the only reason we're not convened the House?

[B]

There may be other reasons, but it is absolutely true that as long as he keeps us from reconvening, the 218th signature for the Epstein discharge petition will not become a congressperson. It goes even one step beyond that, Matt. We are having pro forma sessions. So one of the reasons we do pro forma sessions is the Senate is still meeting, and the House and the Senate need to both be meeting for Congress to be meeting. And so about every four legislative days, a member from maybe Maryland or somewhere near in Pennsylvania takes the gavel. Gavels in, they say the prayer and the pledge, and they announce when they will meet again, and they gavel back out. The speaker could be signing, could be swearing in during that pro forma session, this newest member. And then it takes seven days before we can have the vote on the Epstein release of the files. It takes seven days, legislative days. And each of those pro forma sessions during a shutdown, we have ascertained counts toward those seven days. So not only is he keeping this thing from starting to happen, he's keeping the clock from moving, and he's keeping a congressional district in Arizona from being represented. She's a Democrat. Like, I'm in no rush to have another Democrat in the House of Representatives. But also, presumably she won an election and she's not getting paid because, I mean, I know that's not something people are thinking about or care about, but it's there. There are implications to this. But he would tell you that he doesn't want us here because he doesn't want the Democrats making dilatory motions. And he probably doesn't want Republicans, who, for instance, would be happy to pay the soldiers right now. Like, I would go to the floor right now and vote. In fact, if the floor were open, I would make a motion to pay our soldiers and pass that part of the spending bill. And so the speaker wants to keep everything hostage, including the soldiers paychecks. And so he doesn't want any movement whatsoever. He's carved out. It's an all or nothing cr. Now, ironically, it expires in November. So if the shutdown goes to November, he is going to have to convene again to put another, you know, some kind of bill on the floor.

[A]

So I was at your press conference with Ro Khanna on the Capitol grounds. That was quite a while ago now. And the reaction from not just Mike Johnson but President Trump and most Republicans has been sort of confounding to me. Like, I don't understand precisely what the opposition is, given that they have talked about doing this and demanded that we do this for years. And suddenly you're like, okay, I'll help you. Let's do this. First of all, why are you doing it? And second of all, why are they so opposed to you doing it?

[B]

I just thought of something dealing with the last question, and they'll let me dig into that. I should have mentioned that what Speaker Johnson is doing is unprecedented. Whenever we've had a shutdown in the past, and I've been through maybe about half a dozen of these, we always still meet because presumably we're responsible for the shutdown. And so if you're going to get out of this situation, you should be meeting. And also, if you're in the majority, why wouldn't you want to have hearings? Why wouldn't we want to uncover the things that happened during the Biden administration? So he's calling it the Schumer shutdown, but I'm calling it the Epstein recess. Not only are we shut down, we're in recess. And that's unconventional, unprecedented in the 13 years I've been in Congress. The other thing that Speaker Johnson established a precedent on himself. Until Speaker Johnson had been speaker, I never had observed this, but he swore into members during A pro forma session. They happen to be Republicans. And now he has no real good reason for why he's not swearing in the Democrat during pro forma session. Okay, to the Epstein thing. One of my favorite memes on the Internet. Before I get there, let me set it up. The President himself is called the Epstein files a hoax. And we know it's not a hoax. My press conference with Ro Khanna involved almost a dozen survivors of Epstein's sex trafficking ring. And they were there to tell us there are other men who they were trafficked to. And they've together collectively, they know what some of those names are. In fact, through their lawyer, their lawyer has informed me there are at least 20 names. And he described their professions, which I said to the FBI director, Kash Patel, when he was there. But getting back to my favorite. One of my favorite memes on the Internet was, it's too bad Epstein killed himself before he realized this was a hoax.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, if it's a hoax, why are they resisting releasing the files? And it's because it's not a hoax. And then literally the day while I'm doing the the press conference with Ro Khanna and the survivors, the White House issued a statement saying it would be considered a hostile act if any Republican were to sign my discharge petition. Now, I got to give the three Republicans who have co signed that with me a lot of credit. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace have been under extreme pressure, political pressure, to take their names off that discharge petition. And I think that's another thing. The speaker is hoping that the longer he drags this out, the more likely one of those people might take their name off, for instance.

[A]

The pressure must be insane.

[B]

It's over the top.

[A]

They need one to stop this.

[B]

Correct?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Although if Speaker Johnson keeps putting this off long enough, in November there will be another new member, the House of Representatives, who gets elected, who has indicated, I'm presuming, the result of this election, but I think it's safe to do there will be another member in November. So if they did get one off now to one person, one of my co signers, to unsign their name, they could prevail until November, at which point I get another signer. So they literally have to get two of these signers off to keep it from happening. But that doesn't stop them from trying. And so the pressure is, when you get down to that one last house on the block that hasn't sold, for instance, if it's a development project, it's the same thing. The price is high. And all three of them are paying a large political price to represent their constituents and these survivors.

[A]

And yeah, the victims themselves have paid a horrible price for their courageousness in actually coming out because they're dealing with a lot of pressure too.

[B]

People say, well why isn't it easy to come out as a victim? And when I was at this press conference with these women, the depth of the evil I didn't understand until they spoke it, which was as 14 year old girls, they were told by a friend at high school, come over to this old guy's house, give him a massage and he can make 200 bucks by the way, he's got a nice swimming pool and all this other stuff. All you got to do is give him a massage. The massage turned into something else completely and they, he had their phone number and then through the shame of it, he compelled them to show up at his beck and call whenever he wanted. And this is where it gets really evil. The only way they could get out of it, of showing up and you know, performing sexual favors for Jeffrey Epstein was if they found another girl at their high school who would do it in their place. And so they were, they were coerced into. And one of the witnesses, witnesses, survivors broke down in tears because she admitted, she just said, listen, I was faced with finding a girl for him to take my place or going back there and doing that and I found another girl. And so what happens is now, and people are still doing this even after they know these are 15 year old girls who were coerced into it by an adult man. They're saying, oh you were a sex trafficker, you know, you trafficked these women. But they don't. I didn't really fully grasp how evil this is. Like it's one thing to do evil things to people, but to make them do evil things. And then once you, once he causes you to be implicated, then you don't want to come out because then that's what happens to you. Now there are people asking well why don't these women release the names? And the reason is these are billionaires like that, that. So what happened is Epstein once girls literally once they got to the age of consent, they weren't exciting to him anymore and he would trafficked them to his friends. Now so you might at this point they're going to say, oh well there were prostitutes, they were 18, they were age of consent. Jeffrey Epstein was giving them something and then they did, you know, sexual things with these men. And so what happens is those men who have billions of dollars, they had money to pay off police departments to, you know, to lose reports, to pay off judges. What they would typically do is they would, the, a lot of these girls were from families that weren't very affluent. They, the family would end up with 150,000, up to $500,000 of money and the girl wouldn't testify. So basically that's one of the things they would do. But now they would just sue them into poverty for defamation. And if you don't have the power that the government has to discover these facts, then you can't, you can't contest the defamation case well enough. And the process is the punishment. They basically go broke just trying to hold up their name. So that's where this thing is. The Speaker. Alright, so then there's two other components we really need to talk about. One is the hearing with the FBI Director. Oh, here's another thing. The shutdown prevents, it prevents the Attorney General from testifying in front of my committee. So it's very convenient. It drags that out. If we're having the shutdown doesn't prevent it, the recess does. So the speaker is having a recession, not just to avoid the impending vote on this issue, but to avoid any hearings whatsoever where this issue would come up, like a hearing where the Attorney General and the Attorney General, by the way, the Judiciary Committee, of which I'm a member, has jurisdiction over doj, FBI, atf, and each of those heads of those agencies, out of tradition, shows up whether you want to or not. You show up once a year and you do your thing and you face every member of that committee. Well, that's being delayed right now too for Attorney General Bondi. But so that's, you know, that's one thing we're at. We had, we did get the hearing with Cash Patel, the FBI Director. And I had five minutes. And so as not to waste my five minutes, I also took some extra time to introduce into the record five documents, each of which shows that Jeffrey Epstein was intelligence asset to Israel and to the United States. And even if he's not, there is a CIA file on Jeffrey Epstein that I want to see. I asked Kash Patel, has he seen it? And he didn't know if it existed. And I said, well, wouldn't you be interested in asking for that? Like that's one of the things you're allowed to see is the CIA file on Jeffrey Epstein. Like, you're suspiciously uncurious about that. And then the other thing I pointed out to Kash Patel was that the victims have done interviews with the FBI, and those are memorialized in a form called A302. And those 302 forms, you can't destroy those forms. Those are at the FBI. And the victims know that they had these interviews. So I pointed out that there were at least 20 perpetrators or people who participated or had women trafficked to them that are named in FBI files. And I asked him, has he seen those 302 files? Remember the day before he came before the House Judiciary Committee, who was in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he said there something that's too implausible to believe. He said that they have no credible evidence that anybody else was involved in the sex trafficking other than Maxwell and Epstein. But so my question is, are the victims not credible?

[A]

Thank you for joining me today on.

[C]

Kibbe on Liberty and for being part of our fiercely independent audience. Every week, my organization, Free the People, partners with BlazeTV to bring you this show. My guests bring smart perspectives on everything from current events to timeless philosophical debates. If you like what you hear, go to freethepeople.org kol and support Kibbe on Liberty so we can continue to produce these honest conversations with interesting people. Now, let's get back to it.

[A]

Isn't that almost objectively not true, given the history and Epstein's original conviction? Like, there's a long history here of actual facts that have been released.

[B]

I tried to parse his words. See, they're loathe to perjure themselves in front of Congress. We're starting to see Trump's DOJ maybe prosecute some people during the Biden administration who may have perjured themselves. So it's not a good thing to do to perjure yourself. So. And look, these are the people that interview criminals and figure out how to ask the questions so that they can get criminals to say things, so they know how to answer the questions. And so I parse it and try to look for the most charitable interpretation of their evasive answer. So, like in Kash Patel's evasive answer, you see the words credible. I see Speaker Johnson go to the podium every week during this shutdown and say there's no credible evidence. Well, credible is. That's an opinion. Right. They're not saying preponderance of the evidence like there are legal terms. But credible is a politician word.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's not something you would use in a courtroom, I don't think. I mean, the jury would have to decide if somebody is credible, but so they say no, credible and Then I think maybe the other place he's trying to be artful with his words maybe is a lot of these women were 18 by the time, as I said before, by the time Jeffrey Epstein offered them as favors to his friends, they were already age of consent. And so maybe he's compartmentalizing when he was answering that he's thinking about sex, or maybe he's thinking they're prostitutes now, and if he thinks about them as prostitutes, then they're not being trafficked because it's consensual relationship or something. Here's the facts. There's. There's at least 20 men, rich and powerful men, who are implicated in FBI files and none of those names have been given to us. And there's a, there's a parallel investigation going on in the House by James Comer, the Oversight committee. And I like James Comer, he's from Kentucky. But the material he's getting is carefully curated. They're not giving him any names. And he hasn't produced a single name yet. And I've produced one. The victim's lawyer gave me one of the names and I said it in the hearing. And I'm covered by speech or debate there. So you may say, well, why were you able to say a name? And, and you're not being sued for defamation because the Constitution has something called speech or debate clause. The founders were highly annoyed that the king and his cronies would either civilly or criminally prosecute members of Parliament for things they said in Parliament and that would squelch the debate. And so they put in our Constitution that I can't be sued for defamation and I can't go to jail for anything I say in an official venue that's related to legislation. Well, there's Epstein legislation and I'm talking about that. And so I'm protected in there. You may say, well, why did you say only one name and not 20? Well, number one, that's not my job. That's the FBI's job. And number two, if I prove to them there's 20 and they've got 60 names, they're only going to give us the 20. They're going to say, oh, okay, well there is 20. The reality is there's more than 20. Right, and this is how you force them to give us all the names. Maybe I say there's 20 names, they give us 20 names, we cross reference it to our list and we say, well, no, you missed 10 of them, so there's actually 30. But. And that is their job. Just If Kash Patel or Pam Bondi would tell me, you know what, there are other names and they are in our files and we are doing investigations to see whether they should be prosecuted, that could be a suitable answer because that is their job.

[A]

Well, it strikes me that Kash Patel was conveniently deferring to his staff.

[B]

Yeah. Guess what? Those were Biden's staff too.

[A]

Right, right.

[B]

Like he's saying that, by the way, this is why we elected Donald Trump and this is why he put Cash Patel in there is cuz we didn't trust Joe Biden's homework. And so somebody needs to go check the homework. And so Kash Patel is relying on FBI agents who effed this up for.

[A]

Over a decade and probably conspired to defeat Donald Trump.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

That's what's. So it's mysterious. But I want to get into. I can do some conjecture and maybe you want to or maybe you don't, but I was told by a credible source that the reason that Trump flipped is not because Trump is on the list. And I find it a credible argument that if Trump was on the list, surely the Democrats would have released that. But maybe someone from his cabinet, maybe some of his close business associates in New York, a lot of powerful people that don't necessarily represent the Republican Party. But it's not a Republican versus Democrat thing, It's a Uni Party thing.

[B]

That's right. Once you get to billionaire level, you frequently, you'll find that the same people that have fundraisers for Chuck Schumer now having fundraisers for Donald Trump. Once you get to billionaire level, you transcend the whole party game. You're just, you're rich enough to influence whoever is in power. And in fact, that gets to the billionaires who are against me. They're three billionaires. They have donated to Republicans, but they've also donated to Democrats. And they are not paragons of the Republican platform like pro abortion, trans activism fundraisers for Chuck Schumer.

[A]

So.

[B]

But back to your main point before we get divided.

[A]

Yeah, I want to go there, but let's finish this.

[B]

There's two reasons he's flipped. One, his rich and powerful friends who've donated to him or go to his dinner parties. He doesn't want to embarrass them. And they may, in fact, not even be guilty of a crime. They may just be very embarrassed that they were having extramarital sex with these women, for instance. So that's one thing. But I think there's also the intelligence aspect of this that goes Even deeper. Maybe Trump is on one plane and he's thinking, I can't embarrass my friends. But there may be people at the, in the administration who are career people who are thinking on another plane, like, well, let's convince Trump he's going to embarrass his friends. When in reality what we're trying to do is protect our sources and methods, which may involve sex trafficking. And we don't want to embarrass our partner Israel in this time when the popularity for their war or support for their war is at an all time low. And now we're going to find out that their defense minister, Ehud Barak, was documented with Jeffrey Epstein three dozen times, probably even while he was defense minister. He had previously been prime minister. I don't know that he knew Epstein during that period. I'm not sure how much of those dates overlap. But there are reasons that they want to protect them. There's reasons he's flipped. And I don't think his children or JD Vance or even Pam Bondi or Kash Patel were read into all that when they originally said all of this stuff should be released. I mean, if it's a hoax.

[A]

What.

[B]

Were those binders that Pam Bondi gave out? Was she just fueling a hoax?

[A]

Yeah, it seems to fuel the biggest conspiracy theories about Israel kind of owning members of Congress and members of the administration. Because the magic flip from like, we have to release the files and we have to hold the Biden administration, people that were part of that accountable to it's a hoax was even too much for Donald Trump to pull off. He's pretty good. Yeah. Changing the narrative, but that just didn't seem possible.

[B]

And some people say, well, why is Mike Johnson, why is he making our party walk the plank on this issue? Like, this is an 80% issue and the other 20% just don't care. It's not that they're against releasing the files. 80% of Republicans and Democrats want these released. It's just that Mike Johnson is, I mean, he's jeopardizing our majority. I think ultimately when I force the vote and it happens, he may give permission hall passes secret hall passes to some members of Congress in districts where the outcome of their next election could be determined by their, by their complicitness in this cover up. He may tell them, wink, wink, nod, nod. I'm going to go out here and say, you shouldn't vote for this, but you probably should vote for this. By the way, this is not a conspiracy. Like, I have been A party to these kinds of conversations behind closed doors with Republicans where they give people hall passes and the Democrats do it too, you know, in vulnerable districts. Well, you can vote. You can vote for the CR because we know you're in cycle.

[A]

It's normal practice. Yeah, it's normal.

[B]

So let me address a question I get a lot and you haven't asked yet, but it'll be in the comments from the trolls and the bot farms because they think they're really onto something here. Congressman Massie, why. Why the sudden interest? Why were you never interested in this before? And why did this just occur to you now that Trump wants to keep the file secret? Why are you working so hard to get them released? Well, two. Two answers to that. One. You can go back and find three tweets when Joe Biden was president where I said, these files should be released. But the aspect of using a discharge petition to do this did not occur to me, because a discharge petition, it's a risky gambit. Most of the time, people do it, and they're not really trying to come to a legislative solution. They're just trying to find another way to get people on record. Right? Oh, he didn't sign the discharge petition. My goal was to actually get to the vote. And it's only happened 20 times in the history of Congress has a discharge petition succeeded. It's only happened once in my 13 years in Congress, and it was under a very special circumstance when John Boehner had already announced he was no longer going to be speaker and he wanted the actual outcome of the discharge petition. It was just too hard for him to bring the vote. It was on the Ex Im bank. So. So he wink, wink, nod, nodded to some of the Republicans that you can do a discharge petition against me to get the Ex IM bank vote. And they did it. So, long story short, it's considered heresy against the party in the majority to do it. And obviously you need people in the majority to pull it off because the minority can't get you to 218 votes. And it did not occur to me that this could work, that every Democrat would vote for it until Ro Khanna offered an amendment in the Rules Committee. There was some bill, not necessarily related to Epstein, where he went and went to the Rules Committee and said, I want to have a vote on this Epstein issue. And when you offer amendments, they can't be artfully drafted. They're usually pretty short to stay germane. And so in that Rules Committee, there are nine Republicans and four Democrats right now. He got one of the Republicans to vote for it and all of the Democrats to vote for his amendment. Now, he didn't carry the day. The amendment didn't get a vote on the floor. The Rules Committee didn't vote it out of the Rules Committee, but he got every Democrat and one Republican. And that's when I realized, well, if I took his effort and drafted it more artfully, more legally, and it's not any fault of his that the amendment had things that people could poke holes in. But I thought, well, I could go to Ro Khanna and say, I'm going to do this. Will you co lead it? And then we will write this so that it can succeed. And it wasn't until he offered that amendment in the Rules Committee that I realized it was possible to do this as a discharge petition. And so then once it's possible, I'll do it. And what's funny is you got people simultaneously on the Internet complaining I never get anything done. And then also being against this Epstein.

[A]

Thing because you might get it done.

[B]

Yeah, I am literally against the wishes of every committee chairman, against the wishes of the speaker of the House, the Majority leader and the majority Whip. I am going to get something done. I'm literally going to get a bill passed in the hardest way possible. It's only been done 20 times in the history of Congress and I'm about to pull it off. And it is what Trump campaigned on.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

If you've made it this far into the show, it means I must be doing something right. Key Beyond Liberty is just one of the amazing products we create at Free the People. We tell emotionally compelling stories and produce educational videos for the Liberty Curious. Our award winning documentaries personalize all things liberty, independence, creativity, hard work, integrity and perseverance. After the show, check out our [e-mail] and if you like what you see, donate to support what we do. That's freethepeople.org now back to the show.

[A]

It's what every Republican campaigned on. And I can't help but think you mentioned the obvious connection between Jeffrey Epstein and Israel and probably our deep state agencies and probably other governments that we shouldn't be protecting. I can't help but think that this is really a proxy fight about our involvement with Israel and the way that we're funneling weapons that Israel is using in Gaza. Do you think that's true?

[B]

I think the universe of people involved is small enough that there's a lot of overlap. So for instance, and this gets to the three billionaires who are trying to take me out of Congress. One of them is Miriam Adelson, and she's the widow of Sheldon Adelson, who's a casino mogul in Las Vegas. She, I believe, was born in Israel and was in the idf, and she's a dual citizen now, so she is legally allowed to advocate and spend millions of dollars getting me beat. But Donald Trump recently said in a speech that he once asked her, does she love more the United States or Israel? And she wouldn't answer him. And he said he thinks that could mean maybe she loves Israel more than the United States.

[A]

By the way, he said that in front of the Israeli Parliament, which was probably even sweeter.

[B]

I know, right? So. And by the way, if I were to say that, I would immediately AIPAC would call me anti Semitic for invoking some kind of dual loyalty trope.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But he just did it. He's the president. He gets away with it. It's also what he got away with was candor. It's the truth.

[A]

Yeah, he does that sometimes. And to put a point on it, she refused to say that she was America First.

[B]

Correct?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

She could say it today, but she won't because she's got a loyalty to Israel. And so the two other billionaires are Paul Singer, who, interestingly is basically kept the Washington Free Beacon. It's a newspaper. If I'm being charitable, it's a newspaper, but it's really just his mouthpiece. He's put all the money in it to keep it going. And I don't think it was always considered a newspaper. I don't know, it may have been something else, but it's considered a newspaper now. So it probably has certain privileges and immunities of the press. But he recently came out with a hit piece. So I'm pointing out that three billionaires who've given millions of dollars to smear my name what their motivations are. And they went through 13,000 of my donors and found one guy who's given $500 to me, who's.

[A]

A member of.

[B]

Some organization that I didn't even know existed. By the way, he gave me the $500. This is ironic. At an event hosted by the founder of Muslims for Trump. So literally, there's a whole Muslim organization to help Trump in purple states like Michigan or Pennsylvania. This was actually in Pennsylvania, which was a swing state. And so this was part of Trump's coalition that got him elected.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So. So I'm thinking, okay, it should be safe enough to go to an event hosted by the guy that started Muslims for Trump, but some guy who's given to Democrat causes as well and founded an organization. I don't even know the name of it. They're using that $500 donation to write a hit piece in the Washington Free Beacon that is controlled by the billionaire who's actually. I mean, this is another, I guess, trope that could get me in trouble, that this guy controls the media, but he basically owns the newspaper that's writing the hit piece to find this $500 donor. This was the best they could do out of 13,000 grassroots donors. And by the way, I'm not sending the money back. The guy gave me $500 because I'm opposed to a war against a senseless war where tens of thousands of civilians have been slaughtered with bombs. Okay? That's why the guy gave me $500. I don't have to agree with him on everything, and I guarantee I don't. I probably disagree with him more than I agree with him. I don't know. But that's. That's an interesting aspect of this. And then you have. So we talked about Miriam Adelson, the dual citizen who even Trump believes she's more loyal to Israel than to the United States. She's one of the billionaires who's given over 2 million so far to take me out. One is Paul Singer, who controls the Washington Free Beacon, and he got this hit piece written about 500 bucks because he didn't like seeing his name in the news, because I'm putting it in the news. And then he's like a member of the World Economic Forum, and he's your consummate globalist.

[A]

Probably.

[B]

He's got ties to military contractors, too. Like, I don't want to get this wrong, but he has ownership in some of these companies, I think, and then certainly holds stocks in them. And then John Paulson, this is the interesting one, now, he's only given a mere quarter of a million dollars to the effort to take me out of Congress. He's like, of the billionaires, he's the least of the billionaires that's the least generous of the billionaires to their cause, which is to take out a true American first Congressman. He is in Epstein's black book, and I love to point that out, because this is why, when you said, does this relate to Gaza? Does the Epstein thing relate to. The universe of billionaires is small enough that it's all related. The people that control the newspaper that's writing the hit piece are the same people that want the war to go on are the same people trying to take me out are friends and co donors with people who knew Jeffrey Epstein enough that Jeffrey Epstein had their personal cell numbers in his black book. It's not, it doesn't mean that John Paulson, you know, had sex with women, non consensual sex or sex trafficked. It doesn't mean, doesn't even mean he was at the island. It just means that he was one of maybe 500 or a thousand people that Jeffrey Epstein was concerned with enough to have his contact and personal contact information.

[A]

So the target on your back for questioning. America's involvement in Israel's foreign policy decisions far precedes the Epstein discharge petition. Let's just lay it out because I think we talked about this years ago. Your basic point on foreign aid and foreign intervention is it's not our business, right?

[B]

I'd never singled out Israel. I just want no foreign aid. I don't vote for foreign aid. It gets me in trouble sometimes because foreign aid will be in another bigger bill. And I'm like, well, I'm not for the foreign aid. I'm not voting for this. I don't vote for it when it's aid for a war. I have never voted to fund the war in Ukraine. And so, you know, I'm not picking on Ukraine. I'm not picking on Israel. I don't pick on any country. Georgia, you know, they, which has been back and forth with Russia over that in Afghanistan. I don't vote for that. That's gone on so long. Just don't vote for any of it. I've never singled out Israel. In fact, I never criticized Israel. I've criticized the war that they're waging right now. But there are people in Israel that are criticizing the war that they're waging right now. In fact, this is why they bring Netanyahu to Congress. I can tell you exactly how this happens. Mike Johnson doesn't sit around thinking, man, it's been, it's been like six months since we had Netanyahu here. We should invite Netanyahu again to address all of Congress and the Senate all at once. What happens is his support for his war wanes, not just globally, but domestically. And the State Department gets on the phone and calls up the speaker and says, we need for Netanyahu to look strong and we want him to give an address to the joint Congress. So this will make him look important on the world stage. If he's standing there in front of 535 members of the legislature, the most powerful country in the world, advising them and informing them on things in their own chamber. And so that's the reason they had. It's not because Netanyahu is giving a particularly insightful speech or something that we couldn't read ourselves, is to prop him up and to prop up the war. Support for the war.

[A]

Yeah, I want to talk about Netanyahu for just a second because I'm thinking of that gathering he had with conservative influencers. It was in conjunction with that, and he was giving marching orders to how he can control the narrative in the United States about what Americans should think about him and his war.

[B]

Well, we talked about in the last segment about labeling requirements for beef and that we should have country of origin labeling on our beef. I think we should have country of origin labeling on our political donations and campaigns in the United States. Which country or which countries lobby. So AIPAC is very careful to point out that their donors are Americans, but they're still a foreign lobby. And the Foreign Agent act doesn't say that it doesn't matter where your money comes from, you're still required to register as a foreign agent. If you are, you can be an American. You can just be doing it on your own effort, not even paid. But if you're taking any kind of direction or orders from the country and you're advocating for that country, which AIPAC does, they're organizing trips over there. They're obviously interacting with their legislature and Netanyahu and all that stuff. They're not going it on their own. And so they should be registered. But so should, I think, all of these social media accounts that are funded or paid for with foreign dollars that should be completely disclosed.

[A]

It's pretty obvious that the people at that event were somehow receiving funding from Israel or Israel adjacent organizations. I suggest a little sticker, like a USDA sticker that you get on your stake. You know, maybe just put it on their lapel. But that would include most members of your party, apparently, at this point.

[B]

Yes, I think Marjorie Taylor Greene and I are.

[A]

Maybe you guys don't get a sticker.

[B]

We don't get a sticker. If these were NASCAR uniforms, we would not be sponsored by aipac. Both of us also had something else in common. We don't let them in our office. If you're. I mean, and I'm not picking on Israel. If you, if you're with the Turkish lobby or I guess there's probably people say right now Qatar is influencing our government. I've never seen a lobbyist from Qatar who says they're from Qatar knocking on my door. There are ones from Turkey that try to have influence and I just don't meet with foreign lobbyists. I mean, you got to be from my district advocating for something in my district.

[A]

Yeah, well, let's, we're bumping up on. We got about 10 minutes left. And I want to talk about the war itself. And one of the things that frustrates me with so called conservatives who are really, and I'll just mention Ted Cruz as one of these guys, Senator Ted Cruz, who says that defending Israel is like his first priority. I don't ever remember him saying that when he actually ran as a Tea Party Republican in Texas 2010. Don't want to go down that rabbit hole. But the thing that frustrates me with Israel first type conservatives is that they make this ultimately quite collectivist argument that the innocents that are dying in Gaza are somehow deserving of that because they supported Hamas. And I'm thinking particularly of Justin Amash, had, I think two cousins killed. Christian cousins, Christian cousins killed almost two years ago in some of the first attacks from Israel into Gaza. But how can a conservative make that argument? Because the people that pay the price for war are not the perpetrators. It's all the collateral damage and cannon fodder in the middle.

[B]

In Washington, D.C. you get what you incentivize. And so for Senator Cruz to make that statement, there's almost no cost. But the benefit is great if you look at the donations that would ensue from that. And then also although the demographics of your district or state may be such that it's not obvious that there's a benefit to making that statement, except that there are organizations in the Christian churches where if you make that statement, there's an electoral advantage to making that statement, although that's changing. So let me tell you some insight I have. I hate that in Washington we're oftentimes just regurgitating things and there's no original source. We're expressing opinions. As an engineer, I'd like to bring some facts to this. So I've had the same position on foreign aid since I got elected in 2012. And the, the only place where I pay a price for that position, or could pay a price for that position, is when my blanket prohibition on voting for foreign aid also incorporates Israel. I don't vote for foreign aid to any country, including Israel. So since 2014, I have been polling. You know, when you do polls about your election, you don't just ask am I going to win? Or is the other guy going to win. Right. You ask things that will inform you about your opponent's vulnerabilities and also things about your own vulnerabilities and maybe things where you just want to know, we could. Doesn't change your position. You just want to know, how much does this position cost you and is it a liability? So since 2014, I've asked the same question on my polls, which may have up to 40 questions, and that is I phrase it the same way every year so I can compare apples to apples. The US government gives about $3.8 billion annually to the country of Israel. Which of the following choices describes your opinion of this? And the first choice is we should give them more money. The second choice is, that's about right. The third choice is we should give them less. And then the fourth choice is we should give them nothing at all. And I've been asking that same question for over a decade on my polls. And what I have noticed, to use an MIT term or a math term, support for foreign aid to Israel has been monotonically decreasing. That means it may not decrease at the same rate every year, but every year it has decreased. There's been no year in which it has gone up. It's monotonically decreasing. And this year, and this poll is pretty fresh, this is a couple months old, maybe six weeks old, was the first time that among the Republican primary voters in Kentucky's 4th congressional district that over half the people chose nothing at all or less than what we're giving them. And so not only have we been moving in a trend, we've crossed the threshold where now in a Republican primary, and I can only speak for one congressional district in Kentucky, my position that I've held since 2012 is now more favorable than less favorable.

[A]

Which is why the people that are opposing you because of your stance on Israel are not running ads that are pro Israel. They're making up some. Right. Apparently you're a communist, by the way.

[B]

I mean, it's ironic, the ads that they are running, they falsely try to say, I'm for boys playing girl sports, or there's some omnibus bill like the big beautiful bill, okay? The first version of it, it was kind of a bait and switch, had something where they were going to outlaw boys and girls, sports, sports or something to that effect. And I voted against it. Not because of that provision. That provision is such a minor part of that giant bill which had hundreds of billions of dollars of fiscal implications that was sort of a sweetener in there. Also a poison pill to Republicans. And so that's how they got every one of the ways they got everybody to vote for it is nobody wanted to be have that ad run against them. But now the ads being run against me by billionaires who want boys and girls bathrooms. Like Paul Singer has given over a million dollars to the trans activist cause where boys, he thinks boys should be able to play in girls sports. Or at least that's the way he's voting with his money. But that's the dude who's the biggest donor or second biggest donor funding the ads saying that I'm for that thing that he's for and that it's a bad thing. Obviously I'm not for it. But that's the kind of duplicitous tactics they use. They know it's a liability in my district, so they accuse me of, of holding that position when I don't. But they themselves hold that position. It's crazy.

[A]

Well, the good news on this, and we've run out of time because you got to do another show, the good news is that every time they attack you, every time there's a mean tweet, your fundraising goes up.

[B]

Well, it does go up. Here's the other good news. They are elevating my message. I went on Tucker Carlson about a year and a half ago and explained exactly how AIPAC works in Congress and how they have outsized influence among congressmen. I mean, it's a country with what, 10, it's only like 10 million people or something. It's comparable to Norway or something like that. And we're letting them control so much of our policy because they are the most effective lobby in Washington D.C. but so anyways, that I guess the silver lining, if you will, to me getting attacked every week is people are starting to pay attention. Oh, why? Why are they attacking him? Oh, well, I think I hold his position too, and it is causing people to donate to me. When. When you are singular and hold a position that is the majority position in the Republican Party, but you're the only Republican in Washington D.C. holding that position, you're going to find a lot of support. And that's what I'm finding. When I oppose this war in Gaza or when I oppose foreign aid to all countries, not just Israel. I don't know if it was in this segment or segment we taped before, but you alluded to me being the most hated person in Washington D.C. i have to tell you, I think I thank Marjorie Taylor Greene every week for getting elected so that I'm only the most hated man in Washington. D.C. we're sharing duty. She's the most hated woman. I'm the most hated man. But she is speaking. I had a reporter today text me, hey, I see Marjorie saying this and Marjorie saying that. Marjorie, it's like she's committing candor. Right? Those weren't the reporter's words, but she's saying all of these things. What's your comment on what she's saying? And I've said she's calling it like she sees it and she sees it like the rest of America sees it.

[A]

They're confused by both of you because you actually believe certain things that are doing what you believe. And then very unwashington, the next text.

[B]

From the reporter is, well, some are saying she must be running for president. And she's taking all these positions that everybody agrees with. I'm like, what? No, that is what we're supposed to do as representatives, right? If there's an issue, you know, that everybody's pretty well informed on and they are 80% in support of it, and you come here to Washington, D.C. and you support that as well, it doesn't mean you're running for president. It just means you're doing your damn job.

[A]

Let's end it there. I wish we could have another hour with you, but I think we've done enough. Thank you so much, Congressman.

[B]

Thanks, Matt.

[C]

Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe and also ring the bell for notifications. And if you want to know more about Free the people, go go to freethepeople.org.