A (0:00)

My name's Mackenzie, and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child. So she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis. And we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.

B (0:46)

GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people. Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe. Support is available 247 with VRBoCare.

A (1:04)

We're here day or night, ready whenever you need help, because a great trip starts with the right support.

B (1:15)

So I'm usually pretty critical of Congress, as you all well know, and I'm obviously not the biggest fan of just about any of the lawmakers that we have voted into office. But as usual, when somebody does something I agree with, well, I'm gonna give them their props. And Congresswoman Jackie Speier is that person today. Now, this is the second time I've had to give Jackie Speier props in the last few weeks, considering at the State of the Union. She also stepped up to the plate and invited a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein's as her guest to the State of the Union. So credit's given where credit's due. And it looks like Jackie Speier asked the Department of Justice about Jeffrey Epstein status as an informant. So this is an article from the New York Post, and the author is Sarah Dorn. And the headline is, Democratic Congresswoman reportedly Asked DOJ if Epstein was FBI informant. And we all know the FBI will be forthcoming, right? We all know that the FBI will tell the truth if Jeffrey Epstein was an informant. I mean, you know, they've never had any reprehensible informants on the books in the FBI. That's never occurred. They've always been an organization that's on the up and up with the American people. We can trust the FBI folks. A California Democrat gave credence to a wild Jeffrey Epstein theory on Capitol Hill this week, asking a top Justice Department official whether the Serial Predator was an undercover FBI informant, a report said. All right, let's back up here a wild Jeffrey Epstein theory. That's wild that Jeffrey Epstein was working for the FBI. I don't know about wild. A little bit off the mark, as we all understand here on the podcast. He was being protected by intelligence. And I'm sure the FBI played whatever role they played in it to run interference and to quote, unquote, lose information or whatever part they played. But obviously anyone who's been following the evidence here understands that this was an intelligence operation and the FBI really didn't play a part, in my opinion, at all. But still, I think it's good that Representative Jackie Speier has the courage and is at least bringing up, you know, the case in general. Representative Jackie Speier reportedly asked John Demers, the assistant attorney General of the National Security Division, the way off topic question at a House Intelligent Committee debriefing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act set to expire in several weeks, the Daily Beast reported. So I think that the Surveillance act is very important as well. I think that the government should not be able to spy on Americans. And I think that if you are not familiar with who Bill Binney is, I think that you should stop whatever you're doing after you're done listening to this podcast and do a quick Google and take a look at who Bill Binney is and see what he has to say about intelligence. Intelligence again, Surveillance act again, how they use the Surveillance act against the American people. And again, look who's in charge. Intelligence. Is that shocking to anybody out there at this point that intelligence would have their fingerprints all over something like the Surveillance act as well? But during that meeting, Representative Speier fired off an Epstein question. And I was talking with my dad about the same thing. We were talking about it. I said, if I was a Congressman, I would have done the same thing at whatever meeting I was at. And if there was a Department of justice official in front of me that was already under oath, I would have definitely had some questions. And I don't care what the topic would have been that the committee was discussing. I would have swerved off the plan, off the reservation, and asked my own questions. Because we know that the Justice Department isn't being forthright in this case. We know that the Justice Department is not telling us the truth. And we know at the very least there has been an absolute truth shitshow going on from the video being lost to all the other things that have occurred. We know that the Justice Department really is not a reliable player in this at this point. She introduced her inquiry by noting the obvious. It was not on the agenda, the outlet reported the MERS answered that he had no knowledge of Epstein working for the agency, noting that he works for justice, not the FBI, according to the report. Well, look, he didn't. Look, Demers is smart here. He says, I don't have any knowledge of it. So he's not definitively answering it. And he's very. Answering in a very political way, as you would expect somebody in his position to do. You know, they don't just pull numbers out of a hat to send people in front of Congress. Right. Demers was sent in front of Congress because not only is he aware of what's going on in the capacity of an official of the Justice Department, but he's also probably a wily politician as well as a lot of these bureaucrats are. And that's no knock on Mr. Demers. I'm not familiar with him or what his work has been inside of the Justice Department. And, you know, it's just the way. The way of the world over there. That's just how it goes. You know, these guys that come in front of the camera or in front of Congress, they're chosen because they're wordsmiths. They know what they're doing, and they're trained to deal with situations like this. So he's not going to pigeonhole himself and say, oh, no, Jeffrey Epstein definitely wasn't an FBI informant or whatever he might have been for the FBI, according to Ms. Spear, he's not gonna come out and definitively say one way or the other. Right. He'll say to his knowledge, blah, blah, blah. And we see this time and time again with these officials who are under oath, and it's just, you know, it's just the way they always operate. So, again, I applaud Ms. Spierer for, you know, asking this kind of question, but we know we're not gonna get a straight answer from the Department of Justice, that's for sure. The lawmaker's question was reportedly sourced from a theory that law enforcement may have gone easy on Epstein in 2007 Miami Child sex abuse case because he helped finger his powerful friends. Huh? Well, I don't know about all of that. We know that it was a lot different than fingering his powerful friends. From what we've. What we have been able to follow, the evidence, where the evidence has led us, is that he was protected because he was an asset, and he was still an asset that had use and these guys don't burn assets if they feel like they can continue to get some wear and tear on them. Right. They already had the situation set up. They had all of the gears in motion. They had Ghislaine Maxwell on the inside already. They're not just gonna burn their asset, which is Epstein. So again, I don't really think that the theory of Epstein working for the FBI holds much water. But what, you know, at the end of the day, we're all just spitballing here, right? And I think that's what Congresswoman Spear is doing. She's just trying to maybe rattle a cage here, get the, get the case back out into the, you know, into the public eye maybe, and show that she is not going to, you know, stop talking about the case. Because now we've seen her, you know, two separate times. She's now, you know, asked hard questions here with, with the Justice Department official. Well, maybe not hard questions, but she's asked some questions here with the Justice Department official. And her bringing one of the survivors with her as her guest to the State of the Union was also solid. So, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna see what Ms. Spear does going forward, but so far, so good. Yeah. His 18 month sentence, of which he only served 13 months, has been seen as lenient. Some said the deal was a favor from federal prosecutors for providing tips to investigations described as valuable. Consider considerations. The Miami Herald reported. Again, I don't, you know, I don't really think that Epstein was working as an informant for the FBI. I believe that he was an asset for intelligence, but I need, you know, let's, let's see some more evidence here. If, if, if they're going to say that he was an informant for the FBI, we're gonna have to see the evidence for that because so far I have not tangible that points in that direction. Now, has the FBI and the CIA and intelligence been known to work hand in hand and share informants and share assets? Of course. So could Epstein have been used by FBI? That's definitely not out of the realm of possibility. But at this point, there's nobody who's going to convince me that Epstein was anything but an intelligence asset. It has, it's just, it's just the evidence is overwhelming at this point. Spears inquiry, Inquiry, inquiry. Geez. Sorry about that. Spears inquiry was not the first time law enforcement has been pressed about its ties to Epstein. In July, former Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, the US Attorney who granted Epstein the Miami deal, was asked by a reporter if the financier, pedophile, was an intelligence asset. So there has been reporting to the effect, he said, according to the Washington Examiner. And let me say there has been report to a lot of effects in this case, not just how, but over the years. And again, I would say I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact. The DOJ and Spear declined to comment on the inquiry to the Daily Beast. And what Alexander Acosta is doing here is just not answering the question again, like a good politician, avoiding the whole thing. So there has been reporting to that effect, he said. And let me say there's been report to a lot of effects in this case. He's saying nothing here, folks. He's just muddying the waters, trying to make it, you know, answer the question without answering the question. And all that does is lead us back to the beginning and when he told the Trump transition team that he was told that Epstein was hands off and that Epstein was an intelligence asset. Now we know that he told this to the Trump transition team. It's been reported. So Acosta obviously was My name is