Ep 371 | DOJ’s Epstein Files Release Reveals Deep Corruption | Guest: Rep. Thomas Massie

Summary

Kibbe on Liberty – Ep 371

DOJ’s Epstein Files Release Reveals Deep Corruption
Guest: Rep. Thomas Massie | Host: Matt Kibbe
Date: February 6, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, Matt Kibbe speaks with Congressman Thomas Massie about the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) data dump of Jeffrey Epstein's files. They discuss the troubling redactions, the lack of full disclosure—especially of names of alleged co-conspirators and clients—the release of victims’ personal information, and the wider ramifications of these revelations for accountability, elite corruption, and government transparency. Massie and Kibbe dissect how both political parties and entrenched interests colluded or stayed silent on the Epstein saga, the failings (or worse) of the DOJ, and why citizen journalism is crucial in unpacking the ongoing story.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What’s in the Data Dump? What’s Missing?

[01:10–03:45]

• Massie outlines that while plenty of damning information about elite misconduct is present, the files do not include the names of Epstein’s clients and co-conspirators.

  “They’ve either over-redacted the files in some cases or just completely omitted files in other cases.” – Massie [01:18]

• Shockingly, the DOJ did release victims’ identifying info:

  “They have released victims’ names, they have released victims’ information... A victim who’d never gone public was getting calls from reporters at home." – Massie [01:34]

• Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna had petitioned for a special master to oversee DOJ actions.
• Crucial FBI forms (FD-302s) are missing—these would contain firsthand statements and potentially the names of perpetrators.

  “The reason we know they haven’t released everything is we haven’t seen these FD302 forms that the FBI fills out every time a witness or victim gives a statement.” – Massie [02:55]

2. Elite Accountability & Political Silence

[03:45–11:19]

• The data dump has already led to resignations in the UK; the silence in US media, especially among “influencers” previously involved in calls for transparency, is palpable.

  “If you watch Fox, the Epstein Files Transparency Act never happened. You have to be on social media to even know this thing happened.” – Massie [11:13]

• Massie asserts the scandal eclipses Watergate and Iran-Contra by scale, cross-administration involvement, and number of implicated elites.

  "We have what seems to be almost an infinite number of people involved with Jeffrey Epstein." – Massie [11:38]

3. Epstein’s True Utility to the Powerful

[13:06–20:03]

• Kibbe references Mike Benz’s theory: Epstein as “the banker for illicit exchanges among the military industrial complex.” Massie agrees Epstein was a one-stop “fixer” for heads of state.

  “Epstein was a fixer...If you listen to one audio tape of him, listen to that conversation between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein. It’s a miracle it exists.” – Massie [16:41]

• Massie debunks the idea Epstein ruled by blackmail alone; many elites willingly partook because he supplied what they wanted.

  “Does a drug dealer operate on blackmail? Does a pimp operate on blackmail? He’s providing you with something. He doesn’t need to blackmail you.” – Massie [19:07]

• Many institutions, including MIT, actively sought Epstein's money after his 2008 conviction.

4. DOJ Failures—Accident or Design?

[20:09–40:53]

• DOJ’s redactions focus more on hiding the names of perpetrators than protecting victims.

  "Why are you blacking out co-defendants unless they've decided those are also somehow victims?" – Kibbe [20:09]

• DOJ falls back on “incompetence” as an explanation, but Kibbe and Massie note how this conveniently shields powerful actors.

  “Some people asked me, do you think the DOJ made these mistakes on purpose? … to create an outcry so there would be no more files released...I don't think that's the case. I'm fully confident they are capable of this level of incompetence.” – Massie [04:33]

• DOJ offers members of Congress access to view unredacted files—but only in controlled settings.

5. Crowdsourcing & Citizen Journalism

[37:18–38:04]

• Massie encourages the public to dig into the files and point out specific points for congressional scrutiny.

  "If there are things in the files that you need to go check out unredacted, when is that going to happen? ... I think they could give you the intelligence you need to spend your time wisely there." – Kibbe [37:18]

• Drawing parallels with COVID investigation crowd-sourcing, both stress that transparency comes from the outside, not official channels.

6. Political Fallout and Retaliation

[40:53–53:33]

• Massie describes immediate retaliation after data dump: "$800,000 of ads were bought against me by a super PAC…within hours of this coming out." [53:33]
• Trump's response is to attack Massie and his wife, which paradoxically helps fundraising.

  “Every time he sends out a mean tweet, most of them are directed at me...The attack on my wife has...yielded $40,000 of campaign funds.” – Massie [58:07]

• Trump and establishment figures behave as if personal embarrassment and interests are at risk, doubling down on silence or attacks rather than transparency.
• Massie and Kibbe stress that the Epstein scandal is fundamentally a “uniparty club”—not left vs. right, but insiders versus everyone else:

  "Once the clothes come off, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat… It's not a partisan thing. Once you get into billions, most of these guys give to both parties." – Massie [63:18]

7. Hope for Accountability?

[41:14–44:09]

• Massie is “optimistic” some justice will be done—not necessarily full criminal prosecution but significant reputational or career damage.

  "I think it's higher than most people think. I think they're going to get caught." – Massie [41:14]

• Lays out the two-step path: public pressure led to the data release, and now the released data must be used to force more transparency, public pressure, and prosecutions.

8. Potential for Smearing of Innocents

[46:06–48:42]

• The data dump contains embarrassing mentions of many figures, including those with no evidence of criminal activity.

  "Elon Musk...shows up in the files in emails...he says he's never been, and I believe him." – Massie [46:06] "I appear in the files at least a dozen times because I made the newsletter...There's no conspiracy there." – Massie [48:21]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On DOJ Redactions and Accountability:

  “It's a masterclass in how you can take just a few words out of a whole page and obfuscate exactly what was going on.” – Massie [33:09]

• On the Scope of Corruption:

  “When we look back at the Epstein scandal, it's going to be bigger than Watergate...It spans four administrations.” – Massie [11:29]

• On DOJ’s ‘Incompetence’:

  “I'm fully confident they are capable of this level of incompetence.” – Massie [04:43]

• On Partisanship and the Epstein Elite:

  "Once the party starts at one of those places, I guarantee it, it’s not a partisan thing. Once you get into billions, most of these guys you give to both parties." – Massie [63:18]

• Citizen Journalism & Public Accountability:

  “The checksum we have is the survivors who can tell us names. And until I see those names, I know we don’t have all the documents.” – Massie [34:33]

---

Timestamps of Significant Segments

• 01:10 – Massie details what is (and isn’t) in the DOJ data dump.
• 04:33 – Massie discusses DOJ motivation and incompetence.
• 11:13 – Why mainstream media is almost totally ignoring the story.
• 16:41 – Epstein as fixer for heads of state (Ehud Barak example).
• 20:09 – Kibbe and Massie question redactions that cover co-conspirators.
• 29:49 – Q&A from social media: Why are predators’ names redacted?
• 33:09 – Insight on redaction strategies and government secrecy.
• 37:18 – Massie encourages the public to help identify targets for congressional review.
• 41:14 – Will there be accountability for those implicated?
• 46:06 – Discussion on potential for smearing the innocent in data dump.
• 53:33 – Political retaliation against Massie ramps up after document release.
• 58:07 – Trump’s attacks boomerang into fundraising success for Massie.
• 63:18 – Final reflection on the uniparty nature of the scandal.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a candid, in-depth examination of the official mishandling and political reality behind the DOJ Epstein files dump. Congressman Massie shares insider perspective on how government transparency is systematically resisted by elites from all sides, how real justice may only happen under continued public pressure, and why everyday citizens must step up where institutions fail. The episode is characterized by an irreverent, at times conspiratorial but evidence-based tone, with Massie and Kibbe treating the subject with both seriousness and wry skepticism. For those following the Epstein case or concerned about government transparency, this conversation delivers both context and a call to action.

---

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to Kibbe on Liberty. I'm talking with Congressman Thomas Massie about the latest Epstein files data dump. Some of the most outrageous things that we're discovering in there so far, and whether or not we will ever see true justice for the victims of Epstein Island. Check it out. Welcome to kibbe on liberty. Congressman. Matt, you have a heart out. So I just want to get right into it. I feel like there's a lot in the news here and it's all your fault. There was.

[B]

At least I'm getting credit. Yeah, if I'm getting blamed, I'm getting credit. This almost never happens, right?

[A]

Huge data dump, Epstein files. What do we know so far? And what are we not getting?

[B]

Well, we know there's a lot of depraved activity among the elites in our society. But the one thing I want is the one thing the DOJ is not releasing, which is the names of the clients and co conspirators in the sex trafficking ring. So they've either over redacted the files in some cases or just completely omitted files in other cases. The unfortunate thing that they've also failed at is they have released victims names, they have released victims information. I heard a report that a victim who'd never gone public, didn't want to be public, was getting calls from reporters at home. And so the. The DOJ's failed on at least three counts. They're late. They haven't released all the information, and they've released the victim's identifying information, which they shouldn't have done. And if the. I'm not questioning the judge's decision, but Ro Khanna and I asked the judge to appoint a special master. Maybe it's just as much my fault. Maybe the legislation should have called for a special master. I never anticipated the chief law enforcement officer of the United States not following a law. I didn't know we would need somebody to watch over her. But if they. If the. You know, Ro Khanna and I appealed to a judge to ask them to appoint a special master to oversee what the DOJ was doing. And the judge decided he wasn't able to do that. And he suggested if we bring a court case, that might give us the standing to compel him to do that. So that's an option. But we don't have a special master, so there's nobody watching over the doj. That's unfortunate. And the reason we know they haven't released everything is we haven't seen these FD302 forms that the FBI fills out every time a Witness or a victim gives a statement, does an interview. I don't know why they don't videotape that or make a complete transcript of it, but they have this process of where they put all of the pertinent information, and that would include a defendant's dame or somebody that the victim has alleged has done something criminal. What we see in the documents right now is not necessarily anything criminal.

[C]

It's a lot of embarrassing stuff.

[B]

And we have seen another government person in the UK resign. We've already seen a prince lose his title, and we saw the ambassador from Britain to the United States sacked. And so this release has claimed another. I won't say victim, another hide on the wall.

[C]

So there has been some success there.

[B]

And the victims have actually appealed to a judge now to get the DOJ to take the site down. So some people have asked me, do you think the DOJ made these mistakes on purpose? Number one, to make my effort look bad, but number two, to create an outcry so that there would be no.

[C]

More files released and that these might go away?

[B]

I don't think that's the case.

[C]

I'm fully confident that they are capable.

[B]

Of this level of incompetence.

[A]

Yeah. Well, the Attorney General, as I recall, told you that there wasn't anything else before this data dump, but I guess there was.

[B]

Yeah, I met. Let me talk about the genesis of this. We talked about this before. You know, when people say, why didn't you do this before? The seed of all of this really happened back at the DOJ when Pam Bondi invited Jim Jordan and all the other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee to come over for dinner. And we actually. They had DOJ China. Now, Pam Bondi didn't create the China. She was surprised to find out that the DOJ had China.

[A]

But.

[B]

But it had been decades since the DOJ had invited Congress to come over. And, you know, it was to be a cordial dinner. And it was cordial. And before I went there, it was actually my girlfriend at the time, who's now my wife suggested. I said, jim Jordan told us we each get to ask one question of Pam Bondi, that she'll take questions. And I said, what do you think I should ask? And she said, ask her when the next phase of those binders is coming out. And I said, I'm not going to do that. This is a cordial dinner. It's to kind of, you know, associate names with faces and develop a basis for cordial correspondence and whatnot as the administration goes on. But as the day got near, I decided that is what I should do. As I started looking at what wasn't getting released, and she was making more and more statements in the public. And so I asked Jim Jordan, I said, do you care? I want to let you know this is the question I want to ask her.

[C]

And he said, you do you, Massie.

[B]

I'm not going to tell you what to do.

[C]

And so, sure enough, seated at the.

[B]

Table, I was only, I think it.

[C]

May have been Todd Blanche, between me and Pam Bondi, the most senior members.

[B]

Of the Judiciary Committee were seated kind.

[C]

Of across the table from them. But somehow I ended up on this very long table, very near Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche. And I had chatted with them too, before we sat down. There were some other people who were there that I don't want to disparage by mentioning them, but.

[B]

Because they didn't have anything to do with the Epstein files, any case, I asked the question, I asked Pam Bondi, when could we expect to see the next tranche of these files? And she told me that all that was left was child porn and it was really disgusting and nobody wanted to see that kind of stuff. And, you know, if I were you, if I were a reporter, there would have been a follow up question. But this was a cordial dinner. And I just like, at that point, I realized she has no intention of ever releasing any more files. And so I had to go back and tell my girlfriend the next day, guess what she said, there's nothing left after having said there was, you know, tons of this stuff on her desk that she had found. So that was the seed that eventually germinated later that summer that became the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I want to get more into the details of what we know so far, but it strikes me that I'm thinking about those poor influencers that held up the binders that Pam Bondi gave them on the White House lawn. As far as I can tell, none of them, to a person, are even interested in these files that have actually been released. I guess the hammer has come down amongst Trump loyalists that you're not allowed to talk to this. But I'm struck at how much energy has been spent by not just Bondi, the President himself, Dan Bongino, who's now liberated from his FBI job, Kash Patel, they've gone from there's nothing there, Epstein killed himself, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, to this. And now they're just not even acknowledging there's a lot of smoking guns so far that we know.

[B]

Yeah. I think back to that picture of the influencers holding up the binders. I think at that point in history, Pam Bondi still thought they were going to honor their promise, their campaign promise, the Trump administration, to release these files. And I think probably people who knew better gave her the placebo because she said, hey, I got to release these files. This is what we promised during the campaign. So they gave her some placebo files. They made sure everything she got got was pretty much stuff that had already been released. And then it was, I think, a ding at the regular media, the mainstream media, to give it to the influencers. This was like, thank you for helping Trump get elected. Here's your special access, and here's the cherry on top, the Epstein binders. And I do think at that point she was sincere and maybe hadn't yet learned that she was not supposed to give anything out.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Some of those influencers are complete and total hacks. Right. When I look back at that picture, I realize there's a couple of my friends in that group who are not hacks, who I think have done good work. And I think it would behoove them to. They could redeem themselves by sitting down for a few days and going through these files like the other people are doing out there, and connect the dots and make some connections and produce some genuine content and redeem themselves in doing so. And I would hope some of them.

[C]

Will come around and eventually mention the Epstein files.

[B]

But if you're.

[C]

I don't watch Fox, but I'm told.

[B]

That if you watch Fox, the Epstein files Transparency act never happened.

[A]

Right, Right.

[B]

So you have to be on social media to even know this thing happened.

[C]

And by the way, I think historically.

[B]

When we look back at the Epstein.

[C]

Scandal, it's going to be bigger than.

[B]

Watergate, and it's going to be, by the way, the President didn't go to jail, the Attorney General did. It's going to be bigger than Iran.

[C]

Contra, and here's why. It spans four administrations. It's deeper than any political thing on the surface. And so I think in terms of the number of people who are affected, I mean, how many people were affected by Iran Contra?

[B]

Okay.

[C]

Or Watergate? I mean, specifically in that instance, Obviously, everybody's affected when there's lack of transparency and bad or fraudulent things happening. But I mean, directly affected or implicated, that was a finite group of people. In both of those here we have what seems to be almost an infinite number of people involved with Jeffrey Epstein. At least we don't even know yet how many there were in the criminal enterprise or the seedy part of it. And it's like that Spider man meme where there's six Spider Men, they all look the same and they're pointing at each other. You got all these billionaires pointing at each other. You're in the Epstein. No, you're in the Epstein. No, you are in the Epstein. It's you who is in the Epstein files and you're the one who went down. I didn't go to the Island. Anyways, there's sort of this circular finger pointing that's going on, but I think it's a scandal that is longer in.

[B]

Time, involved multiple administrations and that's why we have to get to the bottom of strikes me.

[A]

And I'm thinking a little bit of Mike Benz. You've probably seen some of his stuff.

[B]

Yeah, Mike Bins.

[C]

This is.

[B]

I love his stuff. I have been reposting it, replying to some of it for Mike Bins. I hope the guy doesn't OD on this data dump because he can sift through the sparsest information and find out what matters and connect dots. Like he's the guy who can find the needle in the haystack. We just gave him a haystack of needles. Right.

[C]

I don't know what he's going to.

[B]

Do with all of it. He could spend the rest of his life with the kind of diligence that he applies to connecting the dots on this much data.

[A]

Yeah. You're calling this a bigger scandal than Watergate and Iran Contrast. And to me it's something bigger than a scandal because I think you've lifted the veil of how insiders collaborate with each other and collude against people. And it's not, you know, the pedophile ring is something that has to be exposed and people need to go to jail for that. But the even bigger story seems to be how these billionaires and these politicians and these insiders are really rigging the game in a fundamental way. And the reason I mentioned Mike Benz is his take on Epstein is that Epstein was basically the banker for illicit exchanges amongst members of the military industrial complex. He was figuring out how to get things done and how to get the money where it needed to be so that certain countries who will go unnamed could buy more weapons and start more wars. So it's like a whole ecosystem. But he was the one we didn't.

[B]

Really know about and he's a one stop shop for heads of state. Like one of the things that Mike Bentz released and Curated so that you understand what's going on is a recording that Epstein made at dinner with Ehud Barak, where Ehud Barak was trying to figure out how to become a millionaire in his retirement.

[A]

And Jeffrey Epstein, he had just left the Israeli government.

[B]

He was actually. What's even more troubling is he had a few more weeks left. I think he was still a member. He was still the defense minister. And he's talking to a sexual predator, a convicted sexual predator, about how to rake in millions of dollars later, once he retired. And Epstein says, well, start out by making a list of all the people who owe you something by virtue of what you did in the government. Now, that's a little bit backwards for most government officials. They go in and they keep a list every day of what they could do to get something on their way out. So it's kind of interesting. That didn't even occur to Ehud Barak until Epstein was like, well, this is.

[C]

How it's done.

[B]

Anyways. And he mentions a company that was not very old called Palantir. He said, that's one of these movers and shakers that's going up in the world and that, you know, and you should associate with them. And he gives some other things.

[C]

But he was just kind of. Epstein was a fixer.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And if you. If you listen to one audio tape of him, that's a good entryway is to listen to that conversation between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein. It's a miracle it exists. And it's in the wild now.

[A]

Thank you for joining me today on.

[D]

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]

It's like, you know, the question that we may never fully know the answer to is how many of these people visiting Epstein island were fellow pedophiles and sexual monsters versus people that just didn't care about that stuff. They're going to turn a blind eye to that so they could cut some sort of deal with Epstein to get. To get the money?

[B]

I had a suspicion before this stuff was released, people said, well, Epstein, the way he did things is he blackmailed people. What's clear that he did collect blackmail material, and he did occasionally Allude to it. I think if people started straying away and he may have got some settlements, like, how did he become the manager of the Rothschild stuff? You know, that almost looks like instead of hiring him to work for them, they needed to give a guy a bunch of money to get him to go away. And we'll do it in a way where it's a recurring stream. So if we give him the money, he could one day come out with the secret after he gets the money. So we're going to pay him out over time. So when I look at that arrangement, that's what I'm thinking, that it's some kind of payoff and it's done in the smartest way possible with lawyers. But I lost my train of thought. I'm sure I had something really.

[A]

Well, I wonder. Like, my point is, do you have to blackmail people who are eager?

[B]

No, this is my point. This was my suspicion was when people said, oh, you operate on blackmail. I'm like, does a drug dealer operate on blackmail? Does a. Does a pimp operate on blackmail? Like to the Johns?

[C]

No, he's providing you with something. He doesn't need to blackmail you.

[B]

You willingly come back. It's where you go to. They were looking at it wrong.

[C]

Like most of these people, Epstein never had to blackmail. They were coming back for women. They were coming back for whatever money, connections with other people. He was sort of the clearinghouse. I mean, MIT was going to. My alma mater, was going to a sexual predator to get money, you know, for their labs. I mean, what wasn't this guy connected to?

[A]

And. And there was no excuse. You can't say. I didn't know. Because at that point, he had already been convicted, Right?

[C]

He'd been convicted, but with a super, super light sentence which belied the true nature of how heinous the things were. That's another thing we got to see at the indictment, which, interestingly, has his co defendants blacked out. Why are you blacking out co defendants unless they've decided those are also somehow victims? But you can read through that indictment and be like, oh, my gosh, they had this guy nailed to the wall. And so the question becomes, how did he get the nails out? And how did he get off the wall and walk away with an ankle bracelet? And even while he was under house arrest, receiving women. How did he get underage women, which are children, by the way, how did he get away with that? What was the trade? What was the thing? He had. One of three things happened. He had either done something for the government in the past, like Alex Acosta is alleged to have said that he was told Epstein was intelligence connected to government intelligence. And so that's why he had to give him the light sentence. Or Epstein in that moment, gave them a bunch of stuff that's not documented and not in those files. Or Epstein became an indentured fixture of the government to forward in time, compromise people, and that's why they let him back out. I think it's one of those three things.

[B]

And here's the problem for the doj, the Epstein Files Transparency Act. We explicitly put in there that they have to release documents related to decisions on whether to prosecute or not. I'm not like making that up or stretching the language of the bill. It's right in the bill. And they haven't released anything about the decision on why they gave him a light sentence. That's one of the things besides the 302 forms that we specifically wanted to get at and named in the bill.

[A]

So I asked folks on X to come up with questions to ask you. But before I ask that, I want to talk about this very scientific poll you just ran on X. I think you had 150,000 people participate. Is Jeffrey Epstein dead? Did he kill himself? Is he still alive? I forget what the other option was.

[B]

Did he kill himself? That got 3%. If I remember, 3% of the 147,000 people who took this poll think Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. It was like.

[A]

And Dan Bongino was one of those, I guess, participated.

[B]

Dan Bongino and Kash Patel obviously took the poll and they called all their family and said, do this. That's how we got to 3%. Then this was surprising. It started out like 30, 40, and it flipped to 40, 30, but it's 40. Some percent said that he's still alive, and 30 some percent say that he's dead, but he was murdered, basically. And 18 or 20, something like that. 18% said, just show me the poll. Yeah, I, I list that on the poll now because I realize that is what a lot of people want. They, they think you might be. They think Mossad might be watching the traffic on that poll.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So there's 18% past the IQ. I'm just kidding.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

18% are like, there's no way in.

[C]

Hell I'm going to.

[B]

Disclose my preference here and then flag myself for all time.

[A]

By the way, you may be kidding, but that's precisely what I do when I take polls like this.

[B]

Because you're part of the 18%.

[A]

I know they're coming after me.

[B]

Just show me the poll. And again, not scientific. Obviously, a lot of those are my followers. But here's the thing.

[C]

I wasn't paying a lot of attention. When Epstein disappear, we can just all agree we can't find him, right?

[B]

Either. Whichever the three options you chose. And maybe number four just showed me the poll. Maybe that's. Maybe you're thinking something else that I didn't even imagine. But we all agree he's not around. We can't find him.

[C]

The question would be, is he the kind of guy who thought he was.

[B]

Cornered and there was no way out?

[C]

I don't think so. Like, Jeffrey Epstein, to me, seemed like the kind of guy, he was just waiting for them to come and unlock the key and take him back to one of his mansions. And he knew, just like with the first conviction, he just would have to wait for a while and play his cards right. And I think he was that arrogant that. That kind of arrogance is built because you got away with it before, and then you got away with it a thousand times and you got so much dirt. He's probably thinking, if I can get back to my hard drive, this is all over with. Right. And so I don't know what.

[D]

Or just.

[A]

Or just indispensable. Like, he was the guy that fixed problems for this elite class of financiers and politicians.

[C]

Like his thought process. He suggested Ehud Barak. Think of all the people who owe you something and then start from there. Those were his words to Ehud Barak. That's what he had to be thinking in the jail cell. So the first time I saw this on the news that Epstein killed himself, I thought, well, maybe he did. It seemed as reasonable and plausible as any other outcome. But now, as we get the full color of who he was and the kinds of things he did and what he got away with, I'm not in that 3%.

[A]

Yeah. So let's ask some questions.

[B]

Oh, by the way, one other quick thing.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

You ask a question, and I think a 10 answers. But one thing that I wanted to mention is there's the Zorro Ranch. There were other equities. There's the Manhattan. Or was it Manhattan? Where do you live in New York, anyways? His apartment in New York. There were other locations. So when somebody says, I've never been to Epstein island, they might be saying, well, I preferred Zorro Ranch.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like they're gonna have to say, I was never at Epstein Island. I was never at Zorro Ranch. I was never on vacation with Jeffrey Epstein to some other location. And I never went to his house. And by the way, we found out that people who said that before the files came out may not have been speaking truthfully because Howard Lutnick, who's, when you watch Trump get on the plane or off the plane, it's usually like Lindsey Graham in the background and Howard Lutnick in the background. Like these are. He's like his traveling partner. Well, Howard Lutnick in a, in a video interview said that he, you know, once he discovered Epstein had a massage table in the middle of his house and what kind of massages he liked, he parted ways with him. And that was in 2005. He claims that happened. I don't know when the video interview was. And he said I never had anything to do with, with him again. But now we have an email from Lutnick to Epstein's assistant saying, I'm bringing my four kids and my wife and another couple and their kids and here are their ages and we'll be at your island tomorrow. Then you got an email. Thanks. Had a great time. I think that's in there as well.

[C]

So.

[B]

You know, did Epstein, like fabricate emails to put a paper trail because he knew that Lutnick would disassociate one? I don't think so. There's no reason to think that's a fabricated document.

[A]

Well, President Trump did tell Marjorie Taylor Greene that releasing the files would hurt his friends.

[B]

Yes. And to quote her, and that's a fact because within a few minutes of that phone call, Marjorie told me that like the same day it happened, it might have been an hour or two later, but Marjorie came to me and said, this is what the President told me.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

If you've made it this far into the show, it means I must be doing something right. Kibion Liberty is just one of the amazing products we created for the people. We, 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]

Anyway, I asked a bunch of folks on X to come up with better questions than I would have and Betty has a good question. Why the hell have they redacted the predators rather than the victims? Will we be able to get that information? It's blatant.

[B]

Okay, that's a good Question. I want to, instead of saying Todd Blanche, I want to say the DOJ when, when in fact, I'm saying Todd Blanche because it's not really Todd Blanche's job. My legislation directs Pam Bondi to do this work, and she is, I guess she's outsourced it or assigned it to Todd Blanche. That's interesting in itself. You would think on something of this magnitude where the law directs her, not Todd Blanche, it directs the attorney General, not the deputy attorney general, to do these things. Why has she never showed up to talk about these things? Why is he on the Sunday shows talking about it? Well, he made a public offer that members of Congress, I think this was in his press conference that is accompanied the press release, could come and view the unredacted files. Well, within a few hours or minutes of that, Ro Khan and I sent.

[C]

A letter, this was Friday at 5:13pm.

[B]

To the DOJ saying, let's set up the meeting. Let's. We want to come over, we want.

[C]

To see the unredacted documents. And Betty, if Betty has some documents that specifically that she can suggest that I should look at, because what's going to happen is they're. They're not going to let me in there with an iPhone.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

It's going to probably be a pad of paper and a pen, and I.

[B]

Can go in there and look at these things and I'll need to know very specifically what I want to look at. I could bring the redacted documents. I've done this before with the 911 report, where they had 30 whole pages redacted, or I don't remember how many it was, 10, 20, 30 pages. Several pages in 911 report, which was supposed to be a public document, had been redacted for a couple decades. So I went in to read them. And then finally, with a lot of public pressure, my friend Walter Jones, who's now deceased, was the leader of this, and I was just helping him on that exercise. We got those pages released. Obama released them. We were working on an act of Congress, and so we forced his hand. I believe they redacted the pages they released. So I went back into the SCIF with the released pages that had been redacted and compared the. Because when I read the released pages, it didn't have the same impact on me and it didn't have the same impact on the public as it did when I read those pages. So I went back in and I compared them and it's a masterclass in how you can take just a Few words out of a whole page and obfuscate exactly what was going on.

[A]

Yeah, that flows perfectly into this question from Michael. Do you think the Feds are actively deleting damming files that haven't been released yet?

[B]

I don't think they are now. I think there's too much attention and they say they've got hundreds of attorneys working on this. I would think that one of those attorneys would at least out a few hundred, maybe one would be ethical and report that. I also think there would be a forensic paper trail. Now, at the CIA, they may be doing that, but I don't think they're doing it at the doj. And they may have done it already. They may have been doing this for decades, they may have done it in 2007 or whatever, but it's going to be hard for them to claim they lost the FD302 forms. Like these are the forms again, FBI fills out after they interview the victims and witnesses. That's the thing here. In programming and data, there's something called a checksum, where at the end of a line there's a number and when you copy that line and you do a hash on that data, if you don't get the same number, then you know there's a mistake in the copy.

[C]

The checksum that we have is the.

[B]

Survivors who can tell us names. And until I see those names, I know we don't have all the documents. And by the way, for the paid influencers out there who are paid to say, massey, why haven't you released the names? You said you were going to release the names.

[A]

I got some of these questions, okay?

[C]

I don't have the names.

[B]

I never had the names, never claimed to have the names.

[C]

The survivors have the names.

[B]

And what I did was to offer to read those names on the floor.

[C]

Of the House if we couldn't get the government to release them. That wasn't the be all, end all, that's an inducement to the government to.

[B]

Say, look, at the end of all.

[C]

Of this, we are eventually going to get these names out, but we're going.

[B]

To make you release them.

[C]

And so the other reason not to release, let's say we've got 20 names is there's probably a hundred, right? And if we release the 20, they could release the 20 documents that name those 20 people and keep 80 documents secret. As long as there are some names that the survivors have that the DOJ hasn't released, then they got to keep doing releases.

[A]

If you can tell me, are survivors engaged with you now that these files have been released, are they seeing names that they want to see? Are they not seeing names that they want to see?

[C]

We.

[B]

So I engage at the press conferences, I engage with them personally now. I interact with them through their lawyers. That's. And that's how we, when we're not in person, I just talk to their attorneys and that's the smartest thing for them to do. Right. They are not at all happy. They are unhappy that other survivors have been outed. I mean they're getting calls at home, people who've never been public. So they're unhappy with that. And we did have Ro Khanna and I did have a zoom call with the survivors attorneys and when we were appealing to the judge with an amicus brief, we talked to them to make sure we were on the same page as them. And they did. At that time they said the DOJ and the judge had been helpful or seemed to be cooperative about redactions. But now I know they're unhappy because they've asked a judge to take the whole site down because. Because the gross incompetence of the DOJ in terms of releasing the information about them.

[A]

You gave people a homework assignment and I want to make sure people heard this. If there are things in the files, I'm characterizing what you're saying. If there are things in the files that you need to go check out unredacted, when is that going to happen? When do you and Ro Khanna go in?

[B]

We don't have a date yet.

[A]

Okay. So everybody's getting their assignment. And if you're watching this and you're digging through these files, as I know the Internet is a beautiful place for citizen journalists. It's why we know that the virus came from American funded lab in Wuhan. They would lied about that. So they're going to lie about everything. But I can see people digging through these things and I think they could give you the intelligence you need to spend your time wisely there.

[B]

Yeah. And in some cases the DOJ may argue that those were victims. But I think one of the things they did, it wasn't a very intelligent redaction process. By the way, the attorneys gave the DOJ names of people to redact. They've had the names for weeks and they could have gone through and just done a simple. But they weren't even capable of making permanent redactions. Remember, you could cut the text and paste it into word or notepad and see the unredacted stuff. So there's a Lack of competence there. But in some cases, I read those emails and I wonder, okay, is it a victim talking about a torture video? Is it a victim talking about a little kid? Is it a victim talking about your little princess or whatever, your smallest one, whatever. It's hard to imagine it's a victim. But what they may have done is just went through and if they saw a woman's name, redacted it. So for instance, in the 2007 indictment, they've redacted co defendants. It's a legal document. It's not like some email where you have to wonder, was this person doing something bad? It's an indictment from the government. And if you read through the indictment, some of these people took the girls from the reception area up to Jeffrey Epstein's master bedroom. And that's in the indictment. But who took them is blacked out. And so it may be those may.

[C]

Be women that work for Jeffrey Epstein.

[B]

And now I don't know if in.

[C]

Their head the DOJ is now saying.

[B]

Those are also victims.

[A]

You've leaned heavily on an assumption of gross incompetence at the doj. And I've done that for years. I always, instead of becoming too conspiratorial, I just assume that it's radical gross incompetence, government failure. But I'm becoming a little more conspiratorial in my old age. And these blacked out names that people are, everyone's complaining about, it looks like they're covering for perpetrators.

[B]

Well, let's find out that. I mean, somebody has to look at what's been redacted. The DOJ can't check their own homework. And the DOJ has offered to let us come and view these files. And so we've asked for a date, a time and a date to do that.

[A]

Yeah. So everybody's asking this question, but I'll read Amity's version of this question. We have seen some heinous accusations of some of the most powerful people in our country, both in and out of the political world. What is the likelihood that there will ever be any accountability for their crimes?

[B]

I think, I think it's higher than you, than most people think. I think they're going to get caught. So, and here's why I think that we've had three people in Britain go down, right. Like they didn't go to prison, which is, you know, some of these people obviously need to go to prison, but at least they lost their fame and fortune. And we got to this point today, we got to three and a Half million documents because two dozen survivors came to the Capitol and stood with me and Ro Khanna and told their stories and there was already public sentiment on our side. But I think the groundswell of support and then bringing it inside of the Beltway, bringing it to the steps of the Capitol and pressuring these people now.

[C]

We never got another signature besides Marjorie.

[B]

Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert and me on the Republican side.

[C]

We were trying to get more signatures.

[B]

We never could compelled that to happen.

[C]

But when the vote did happen because.

[B]

They had bottled up this so much, it was 427 to 1 in the.

[C]

House and 100 to nothing in the Senate. So think of this as like maybe it's a two step process. We got to where we are three and a half million documents by making the argument in public and using the information that was already out there. Now we've got three and a half million documents that we can use to again bring the public pressure to bear on my colleagues or the DOJ through citizen journalism and research. And Mike Benz connecting the dots and the survivors again with the sustained pressure of pointing out that the there's a release but these men aren't named and the FD302 forms aren't there. We're not as stupid as you think we are doj. And so the next step will be to use the material that's been released now to get the next bit of material.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And by the way, if you're one of the 3% or if you're one of the 20% who don't care about this or don't think the files should be released, I don't know where your head is at at this point. I mean the heinous things that we've seen. I think we can bring the remaining 5 to 20% in the polls that don't think the Epstein files need to be released. Hopefully now those arguments have gone away.

[A]

Well, it seems like an argument primarily made at this point by political apparatchiks that want to change the conversation.

[B]

And by the way, there's a criticism of me that the DOJ has made and that you'll see in the public too, but not so much. This is mostly just a DOJ talking point that they said oh this is like the John F. Kennedy material or the UFO material or whatever. You'll never satisfy these people no matter how much you release. I would say that's completely and totally false the way you satisfy Thomas Massie. I'll be done with this project when those guys are Perp walked that have been named by the survivors. Like, I have a very clear threshold for when I am done. In the meantime, I'm like a dog to a bone. But that's one of the ways they try to take the wind out of your argument. They say, look, three and a half million files, by the way, before they released three and a half million files, I said, there's a few dozen I care about. I don't care how many millions you have. I want to see the FD302 forms and the prosecutorial notes about decisions on whether to indict Epstein back in 2007. And, oh, by the way, let's see those notes for the recent conviction as well, or indictment.

[A]

Yeah, and if they release those, that would. I didn't write it down, but there was a question from someone that asked whether or not this massive data dump had the potential of smearing innocent people because of lack of context and all sorts of information not relevant to the accusations.

[B]

I think you're seeing that being litigated right now, for instance. So let me use an example. Elon Musk, he shows up in the files in emails with either Epstein or Epstein's assistant discussing about whether to go to the island. But he said he's never been, and I believe him. And until somebody comes up with proof that he was actually on the island, everybody else should believe him. That should be the case. I don't see an email that says, thank you for a great time on the island or thank you for a great time at Zorro Ranch. So these things are being litigated. And there are people who show up embarrassingly in these files who are. We have no reason to suspect they were predators.

[A]

At Kibbe on Liberty, Freedom.

[D]

Is a lifestyle24.7, something you live and breathe and wear every day. If that describes you, you need the very best Liberty swag in the market today, just like this shirt I have happen to be wearing. Go to freethepeople.org kol and check out our exciting merch. You too can love Liberty and look.

[A]

Cool, by the way. I'm excited to see what. There's this informal group called Drastic. And you may remember they're the ones that were digging into the origins of COVID and all of the DARPA documents. And because of them, we know what actually happened. They're digging into Epstein's involvement in pandemic planning. And I can't even say more than that because I know there's some really interesting things in the files. And those guys who are a lot smarter than I am are going to find them, and I can't wait to hear what's going on there, by the way.

[B]

Let me give you an example of somebody's name who appears in the files a dozen times at least, is not guilty of anything and can defend himself. I appear in the files at least a dozen times because I made the newsletter, the internal newsletter over at the FBI when I was trying to get these files released that was of interest to them. There's no conspiracy there.

[C]

I mean, you know, my own staff compiles news releases, for instance, for me.

[B]

To read every week that might be.

[C]

Interesting to our legislation or whatever. Well, the FBI was doing the same thing. So I appear a dozen times in their files. But that's not a. That doesn't mean I'm guilty of anything.

[A]

Since we're coming out of the closet, I'm in there, too.

[C]

It's almost like. Yeah. Were you doing anything if you don't show up on the DOJ's radar?

[A]

Well, I have this. This increasingly conspiratorial view that some of the attacks on Freedom Works back when we were taking out incumbent Republicans and replacing them with good guys, guys like you and Rand and others, There's a lot of stuff where they're just monitoring what's going on at FreedomWorks, which is how I show up. It's all that political activity back in the day. So I'm curious to dig a little bit deeper and see if they had an interest in stopping a bunch of citizens who had this really radical idea that you shouldn't spend money you don't have. And I believe it to be true because that's their lifeblood, all this government money. They're feeding off of it. So, yeah, I want to know. I want to know who exactly we're fighting against when we. We try to do something as obvious as not spend money for illegal immigrant programs in Minneapolis.

[B]

There's an argument. Now that we're discussing this, there's an argument to be made that every file that the government ever compiles should be released after 20 years. Because if you were investigating a crime and it's 20 years later, your statute probably expired. Statute of limitations. And it would be an inducement to the government not to compile a bunch of crap on people that had no legitimate purpose or could ever lead to a prosecution.

[A]

Yeah. Well, you have a heart out. And we have about five, 10 minutes left, depending on when your press guy yells at me on camera here, but I want to talk about President Trump. And there was this pretty interesting exchange he had with the CNN reporter in. What is that? It's not the Oval Office. It's where the fancy people meet. Wherever that was, Press gallery or corps.

[B]

I don't know, but I don't know the room.

[A]

And he had answered a couple of her questions, and then she asked him about whether or not the victims of Epstein would be made whole. Something like that. I'm butchering the question. And he took her head off. And as I recall what he said, he's like, now that we've proven that I'm not guilty of anything, I think we just need to move on from this.

[B]

As if it was about him.

[A]

Right? As if it was about him.

[B]

Yeah. Which that was something. Through the whole process, I call it five months of legislative siege warfare to get this passed. Ro Khanna was careful not to make it about Donald Trump, and I was careful not to make it about Bill Clinton because that wasn't going to help the survivors to, you know, had specific billionaires and people they had in mind that were in these files that need to get released and possibly indictments issued. And so anybody who's still arguing, red team, blue team, after these files came out, it's almost like a contest. Who has more mentions Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, who has more pictures with women, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump? And it's totally missing the point. So he missed the point in that. And then he did he really. He just called her names after that. He didn't want to talk about this. Still doesn't want to talk about this.

[A]

Yeah. My point is, as far as I'm no political expert, but it strikes me that he is personally handling this exactly wrong. Because when he does something like that, it sounds like he's guilty of something. And I don't understand the play.

[B]

If you at least try not to look guilty, you could be guilty as hell and just say, well, I want all these files out. Right. Try it that way and maybe you'll get out of it. But if you keep looking guilty. By the way.

[C]

I started this out as thinking he's not guilty at all.

[B]

But the more he behaves like that, like you said, the harder it is to believe there's not something that he's embarrassed about. I'm not talking about guilt, but embarrassment. By the way, also, as soon as.

[C]

These files came out, $800,000 of ads were bought against me.

[B]

By a super.

[C]

PAC that's funded by Paul Singer, Miriam Adelson and John Paulson. They had bought ads last summer, same day. Yeah. Within hours yeah, maybe they already had it planned, but you could say maybe they already had it planned, but maybe they decided how much to spend or when to spend it. Right. They spent it last summer against me.

[B]

And into the Epstein files. They were spending money against me before the Epstein files came out or before the legislation, before I introduced it. But then after I introduced it, they spent even more money, but then they went quiet. And it's been relatively quiet for three or four months, but it's within hours of this coming out, $800,000 of TV ads run against me. And then within a day, you know, one more day passes and the President of the United States attacks my wife on social media and says she's a, you know, a big lefty and that's why. And then accuses me of being liberal or left leaning because I married somebody who's liberal or left leaning. And the funny thing about that is my wife, when Donald Trump was given to Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer and a whole host of the Democrat Party of New York, he's giving obscene amounts of money to Democrat politicians. And this was, I think, before he started giving also to Republicans. There was a period of time where he gave to both. She was working as a volunteer for Ron Paul.

[A]

That radical leftist, spent her.

[B]

Own money to buy flyers and hand out, worked the polls, right. And then she also ended up working for a Campaign for Liberty and National Right to Work, by the way, those two organizations. When Hillary Clinton, Clinton talks about the vast right wing conspiracy, she doesn't know it's named Campaign for Liberty and National Right to Work. But that's in that constellation of what Hillary calls the vast right wing conspiracy against whatever. And then my wife worked on Senator Paul's very first campaign, and mind you, he was running as the right wing libertarian candidate versus the Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Commerce, more Moderate Republican, Mitch McConnell's guy. Definitely. No secret, it's the one that Mitch McConnell would have preferred. So we're talking about not just a Republican, any run of the mill Republican. But it's not even arguable Rand Paul is the most right of the Republicans in the Senate. Okay, well, after she helped him win that campaign, she worked in his office for five years, like on all this right wing stuff, by the way. But when she started all this, Donald Trump was still given to Democrats. So it's funny. And she voted for him three times.

[A]

So it's funny for him, she's a Manchurian lefty. Like she's been biding her time for the last several decades.

[B]

She's faked it since the age of 18 or 17.

[D]

That's pretty good.

[A]

When she was working, she's pretty disciplined.

[B]

On Ron Paul's campaign.

[A]

Yeah, But I mean, he's. By the way, I assume you saw that President Trump was worrying that Congress was going to treat Hillary Clinton poorly.

[B]

Oh, yeah. He had concern for Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, good friends of his. He reminded you.

[A]

Yeah. So he's reverted back to the guy that was writing checks for Bill and Hillary.

[B]

He's getting there in this path that he's walking, though. He's in the Lindsey Graham neocon area and going back to.

[A]

So we won't get too deep into your campaign fundraising, but it strikes me that your best fundraiser is a mean tweet from the President.

[B]

The attack on my wife has. I hate it for my wife, but it's yielded $40,000 of campaign funds, and the president just, he's not learning on this. Like, every time he sends out a mean tweet, most of them are directed at me. I brush it off. I don't hit back. I'll say something humorous. The first time he attacked my wife by attacking my marriage, I joked that he was mad that we didn't invite him to the wedding. And this time that he attacked, I said, who knew Carolyn would get free rent in his head along with me? I guess that's one of the perks of marriage, is that you get free rent in the president's head now if you're married to me. We're cohabitating there. We also got to go in his head to Switzerland, to the summit there.

[C]

He mentioned me there, said I needed to on the world stage, said I.

[B]

Needed to see a psychiatrist.

[C]

So when he did that, I tweeted.

[B]

Please send me a donation so I can get some help.

[C]

I, you know, I try to take.

[B]

It with a grain of salt because obviously the things he's saying are not true when he says them about me.

[C]

He said, if you want to know how I'm polling, he says I'm at 8%, 9% and 6%.

[B]

I think three times he's reported that.

[C]

That I'm polling in the single digits, when in fact, I am polling ahead.

[B]

Right now in my race.

[C]

But so, and a lot of the attacks. There's two things about the attacks, why I don't take them personally.

[B]

Number one, they're trying to intimidate other members of Congress.

[C]

Do they think they're going to get.

[B]

Me to vote for this omnibus this.

[C]

Week by tweeting a mean attack on.

[B]

My wife, there's no way in hell that's going to persuade me. Right.

[C]

But then there's some other congressmen who like, oh, my gosh, there's no level he won't go to. And my wife would never put up with that. You know, like, that would cause us to get divorced. She doesn't even like politics. Right. Or when they run $800,000 of ads against me, you know, within hours of the Epstein files coming out, they're thinking, oh, my gosh, can I win? And then when Trump tweets, by the way, he's endorsed my opponent. I think now he's tried to launch my opponent's campaign four times by endorsing him. The endorsements aren't sticking, I guess, because he keeps reintroducing the candidate. So sometimes he just copies his tweet from months ago, right?

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I mean, you could give your social media post to Grok and say, hey, can you do this again? But change the words a little bit so it doesn't look like I'm so lazy. I'm just putting the same thing out. There's another reason I don't take it personally.

[B]

In some ways, this is above the president's pay grade, if you want to know how this world works. And this is because of campaign finance disclosure. And I know it's called, you know, it's super PACs, and people want to get rid of this money that comes into it, but it still has to be reported. Miriam Adelson has given over $200 million to Donald Trump. And she was born in Israel. She's a dual citizen. And this is the main thing for her is foreign policy, foreign involvement, our engagement in the wars in the Middle east, our engagement in. In the sending money to Israel. And she's getting a hell of a return on her money. I mean, in exchange for spending hundreds of millions, Israel is getting tens of billions. Okay, so so far, if that's her goal, it's a good investment. But if I. If Donald Trump right now, if we got on the phone and I asked him to stop running the ads, and he said he would tell them to stop running the ads, the ads would keep running because it's above his pay grade. It's like the tweet about my wife. I don't take it that personally. I think his political consultants, who aren't that smart, tried to figure out a way to cause some kind of marital disagreement or strife for me so that I would be less effective as a campaigner or as a legislator. And it's Just not working. But again, it's above his pay grade. It's the billionaires who he has stood on the stage next to and said he does things for them because they give him that much money. And that's why I'm not that offended. He's not the enemy.

[A]

That's what I take from the Epstein files that I've seen so far, that it's a uniparty club and you ain't in it.

[B]

Do you think that when they get to Epstein's island or Zorro Ranch, they compare voter registration cards? I don't think so. Once the clothes come off, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat. Once the party starts at one of those places, I guarantee it. It's not a partisan thing. Once you get into billions, most of these guys you give to both parties. If you look at, like Bill Gates and the kind of stuff that he's.

[A]

Funded now, I'm going to have nightmares about that. Thank you.

[B]

Well, don't read the email that Jeffrey Epstein sent to Jeffrey Epstein memorializing what.

[A]

Jeffrey Epstein sent to who?

[B]

To Jeffrey Epstein.

[A]

Oh, he sent it to himself.

[B]

He sent an email to himself memorializing things that he says that Bill Gates did, for instance. Don't know if it's true. Bill Gates says it's not true, but Melinda Gates has talked about Is not so sure. Is not so sure. Yeah. And she could come out and say otherwise, but I think part of their divorce was because of Jeffrey Epstein. I think she specifically mentioned him. And so that lends a little bit of credibility to this. But I don't know if it's true. It's in the files. I don't even want to say it. Your people can go find it. You can list it on the site.

[A]

If you have a. If you have a tough stomach, Google that.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

All right. Thank you, sir. You gotta go.

[C]

Thanks, Matt.

[B]

See ya.

[D]

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 to freethepeople.org.