DOJ's Epstein Files Release Reveals Deep Corruption — Free the People with Matt Kibbe (Ep. 371)

Name: DOJ's Epstein Files Release Reveals Deep Corruption — Free the People with Matt Kibbe (Ep. 371)
Uploaded: 2026-02-06
Duration: 65 min 33 s
Description: An hour-plus with Matt Kibbe right after the DOJ's redacted Epstein file release. Massie walks through what's in the files, what isn't, and which members of Congress are blocking the discharge petition.

Feb 6, 2026 · 1:05:33 matt-kibbe epstein doj deep-state

An hour-plus with Matt Kibbe right after the DOJ's redacted Epstein file release. Massie walks through what's in the files, what isn't, and which members of Congress are blocking the discharge petition.

Original by Free the People on YouTube ↗ · Is this yours? Claim credit →

Chapters

Transcript

Click any timestamp to jump to that moment.

Welcome to Kib 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 Kibby 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.
>> Um, there was >> At least I'm getting credit. >> Yeah. >> If I'm getting blamed, I'm getting credit. This almost never happens, >> right? Um, huge data dump, Epstein
files. Um, what do we know so far and what are we not getting? 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 this sex trafficking ring. So, they've either overredacted the files in some cases or just completely omitted files in other cases.
The um 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 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 uh released the victim's
identifying information which they shouldn't have done. And if the I'm not questioning the judge's decision, but Roana and I asked a 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 Roan and I appealed to a judge to ask him to
appoint a special master to oversee what the DOJ was doing and the judge decided he wasn't able to do that. He suggested
if we bring a court case he that might um give us the standing to 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. Um, 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
uh a victim gives a statement, does an interview. I don't know why they don't videotape that or make a complete trans
transcript of it, but they have this process of where they put all of the pertinent information and that would include uh a defendant's dame if or somebody
that the victim has alleged has done something criminal. What what we see in the documents right now is not necessarily anything criminal. It's a
lot of embarrassing stuff. And um 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 um another hide on the wall. Um so there has been some success
there. and the victims have actually appealed to a judge now to get the DOJ to take the site down. Um, so some
people have asked me, do you think the DOJ made these mistakes on purpose? You know, number one, to make my effort look bad, but number two to create an
outcry to so that there would be no more files released and that these might go away. I don't think that's the case. I'm fully confident that they are uh capable
of this level of incompetence. >> Yeah. Well, the the the attorney general, as I recall, told you that there wasn't anything else before this
data dump. >> Um but I guess there was >> Yeah. I met Then we talked about the genesis of this. We talked about this
before. You know, when people say, "Why didn't you do this before?" Um, 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, 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. Um, and before I went there, it 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 she 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 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 and develop a basis for cordial
correspondence, whatnot as the administration goes on. But as the day got nearer, I decided that is what I
should do." as I started looking at what wasn't getting released. And so 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." And he said, "You do you, Massie. I'm not going to tell you what to do."
And so sure enough, uh, seated at the table, I was only, I think it may have been Todd Blanch between me and Pam Bondi. um the most senior members of the
of the judiciary committee were were seated kind of across the table from them but somehow I ended up on this very
long table very near Pam Bonnie and Todd Blanch and I chatted with them too before we sat down there were some other people
that were who were there that um I don't want to disparage by mentioning them but um cuz they didn't have anything to do
with the Epstein files. Any case, um I asked the question, I asked Pam Bondi, "When could we expect to see the next
trunch 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 uh 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 and that at that point I realized she has no intention of ever releasing any more files. And so 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 that was the seed that eventually germinated later that summer
u that became the Epstein Files Transparency Act. >> Yeah. I mean I want to get more into the details of of what we know so far, but
it it strikes me that I'm thinking about the those those poor influencers that held up the binders
that Pam Bondi gave them on the White House lawn. Um, as far as I can tell, none 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 but I'm struck at how
much energy has been spent by not just Bondi, the president himself, uh Dan Bonino, who's now liberated from
his his uh FBI job, Cash Patel, like they're they they've gone from there's nothing there, uh Epstein killed
himself, blah blah blah blah blah to this, and now they're just not even even acknowledging uh there's a lot of smoking guns so far that we know.
>> Yeah. I think back to that picture of the influencers holding up the binders. Uh I think at at that point in history,
Pam Bondi still thought they were going to honor their uh 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 gotta release these files. This is what we promised during the campaign." So they gave her some placebo files. They made sure everything she got was pretty much stuff that had already
been released. And then uh 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 the special access and um here's
the cherry on top, the Epstein binders. And I I do think at that point she was sincere and maybe hadn't yet learned
that she was not supposed to give anything out. >> Yeah. >> Um some of those influencers are complete and total hacks, right? I when
I look back at that picture I realize there's a couple of my friends in that group >> um who are not hacks who I think have
done good work and I think it would behoove them they they could redeem themselves by sitting down for a few days and going through these files like
the other you know people are doing out there and make connect the dots and make some connections and and produce some genuine content and and redeem
themselves in doing so And I I would hope some of them will come around and eventually mention the Epstein Files, but if you're I don't watch Fox, but I'm
told that if you watch Fox, the Epstein Files Transparency Act never happened. >> Right. >> So, you know, you have to be on social
media to even know this thing happened. And by the way, I think historically, when we look back at the Epstein scandal, it's going to be bigger than
Watergate. And it's going to be who, by the way, the president didn't go to jail. the attorney general did. Uh it's going to be bigger than Iran Contra. And
here's why. It spans four administrations. It's deeper than any uh political thing
on the surface. And so I think in terms of the the number of people who are affected, I mean, how many people were affected by Iran Contra? Okay. Or Watergate. I mean
specifically in that instance, obviously everybody's affected when there's lack of transparency and and bad or fraudulent things happening, but I mean
directly affected or implicated that there 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 and at least we don't even know yet how many there were in in the criminal enterprise
or the Sidi part of it. And um there's a it's like that Spider-Man meme where there's six Spider-Man. 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 Epste. No, you're in the Epste. No, you are in the Epste. It's you who is in the
Epstein files and you're the one who went the I didn't go to the island. Anyways, there's sort of this circular fingerpointing. >> Yeah. >> That's going on. Um, but I think it's a
scandal that is is longer in time, involved multiple administrations, and that's why we have to get to the bottom
of it. >> It it strikes me, and I'm thinking a little bit of uh Mike Ben's, you you probably seen some of his stuff.
>> Yeah, Mike Benz. This is I love his stuff. I have been reposting it, uh, replying to some of it. for Mike Benz. I
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 >> hay stack. >> We just gave him a hay stack of needles,
right? Like I don't know what he's going to 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. Yeah, you
you're calling this a bigger scandal than than Watergate and Iran Contra. And to me, it's something bigger than a scandal because it I think you've you've
lifted the veil of how insiders collaborate with each other and collude against people. And it's not, you know,
that the pedophile ring is is something that has to be exposed and people need to go to jail for that. But the the even
bigger story seems to be how these billionaires and these politicians and these insiders are are really rigging the game in a
fundamental way. And and the reason I mentioned Mike Benz is his his take on Epstein is that Epstein was basically the banker for illicit um exchanges
amongst members of the military-industrial complex. Mhm. >> Like he was figuring out how to get things done and how to get the money where it needed to be so that that
certain countries who will go unnamed could could buy more weapons and start more wars. So it's it's like it's like a whole ecosystem
we didn't really know about. >> And he's a one-stop shop for heads of state. Like one of the things that Mike Bence re uh released and curated so that
you understand what's going on is a a recording that Epstein made at dinner with Ahood Barack where Ahood Barack was
trying to figure out how to become a millionaire in his retirement and Jeffrey Epste he had just left the Israeli government. >> 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 uh later, you know, once he retired.
And uh 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."
Um, now that's a little bit backwards for most government officials. They they go in and they keep a list every day of
what they could do to get something on their way out. So the it's it's kind of um interesting that didn't even occur to
Hood Barack until Epstein was like well this is how it's done. Um anyways, and he mentions a company, you know, that
was not very old called Palunteer. He said, you know, 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, but he was just kind of he Epstein was a fixer. >> Yeah. >> And if you if you listen to one audio
tape of of him, that's a good entry way is to listen to that conversation between Hood Barack and Jeffrey Epste. It's a miracle. It exists and it's in
the wild now. >> Thank you for joining me today on Kib on Liberty and for being part of our fiercely independent audience. Every
week, my organization, Free the People, partners with Blaze TV 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 org/kol and support kib on Liberty so we can
continue to produce these honest conversations with interesting people. Now, let's get back to it. It's like,
you know, the the question that we may never fully know the answer to is how many of these people visiting Epstein Island were um fellow pedophiles and 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,
>> right, >> with with Epstein to get to get the money. >> I had a suspicion before this stuff was
released, people said, u well, Epstein, the way he did things is he blackmailed people. What's clear that he did collect
blackmail material and he did occasionally um 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 he's 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. Um
but uh I lost my train of thought. I'm sure I had something really >> Well, I wonder like my point is do you have to blackmail people who are eager?
>> No, this is my point. This was my suspicion was when people said, "Oh, he operate on blackmail." I'm like, "Does a drug dealer operate on blackmail?" Does a uh
does a pimp operate on blackmail? Like to the John's? No. He's providing you with something. He doesn't need to blackmail you. You willingly come back.
It's where you go to. You're they were looking at it wrong. Like most of these people, Epstein never had to blackmail. He they were coming back for women. They
were coming back for you know whatever money uh connections with other people. He was sort of at the clearing house. 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? >> And and there was no excuse. You can't say I didn't know because at that point
he had already been convicted, >> right? He had been convicted but with a super super light sentence which uh belied the the true nature of how
heinous the things were. That's another thing we got to see in the indictment um which interestingly has his
codefendants blacked out. Why are you blacking out codefendants? Unless they've decided those are also somehow victims. But it's 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? um how did he get, you know, underage women,
which are children, by the way. Um how did he get away with that? What what was the trade? What was the thing he had
there? One of three things happened. He had either he had either done something for the government in the past like Alex Aosta 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 of the government to forward in time compromise people and
that's why they let him back out. Um, I think it's it's one of those three things. 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. That 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. >> So, I asked uh folks on 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. >> Yeah. >> On X. I think you had 150,000 people
participate. Um, is Jeffrey Epstein dead? Did he kill himself? Is he still alive? I forget what the other option was.
>> Did he 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 >> and and Dan Bonino was one of those, I guess, participating. >> Dan Bonino and Cash Patel obviously took
the poll. >> Yeah. Uh and they called all their family and said do this. U that's how we got to 3%. Then uh then it was this was
this was surprising. It started out like 30 40 and it flipped to 4030 but it's 40ome percent said that he's still alive
and 30ome percent say that he uh he's dead but he was murdered basically and 18 or 20 something like that. 18% said
just uh 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 MSAD might be watching the traffic on that poll, right? >> So, there's 18% past the IQ. I'm just
kidding. Uh 18% are like, there's no way in hell I'm going to >> uh disclose my preference here and then
flag myself for all time. By the way, you may be kidding, but that's precisely what I do when I take polls like this because >> Oh, you're part of the 18%. I know they're coming after me.
>> Show me the poll. >> Um, and again, not scientific. Obviously, a lot of those are my followers, >> but here's the thing. I I wasn't paying
a lot of attention when Epstein disappeared. We can just all agree we can't find him, right? Yeah, you know,
either whichever of 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 u we all agree he's not around. We can't find him. Um
the question would be is he the kind of guy who thought he was cornered and there was no way out? 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 it 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 um I don't know what >> or just or just indispensable like he was the the guy that fixed problems for
for this elite class of financeers and politicians >> like his like his thought process he he g he suggested ahood Barack think of all
the people who owe you something and then start from there. >> Yeah. >> Like those were his words to Ahood Barack. That's what he had to be
thinking in the jail cell. So, you know, 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,
um, I'm not in that 3%. >> Yeah. So, let's ask some questions. Uh, >> oh, by the way, one one other quick thing. >> Sure.
You ask a question and I think a 10 answers. But one thing that I wanted to mention is there's the Zoro ranch. There were other equities. There's the the
Manhattan or was it Manhattan? Where do he live in New York? Um 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 Zoro Ranch." Right? like they're going to have to say I was
never at Epstein Iowa. I was never at Zoro Ranch. I was never on vacation with Jeffrey Epste to some other location and I never went to his house. And by the
way, we found out that um people who said that before the files came out
uh may not have been speaking truthfully because Howard Lutnik, who's it when you watch Trump get on the plane or off the
plane, it's usually like Lindsey Graham in the background and Howard Lutnik in the background. Like these are he's like his traveling partner. Well, Howard
Lutnik 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 they said I
never had anything to do with him again, but now we have an email from Lutnik to Epstein's uh 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. Uh, so
you know, did Epstein like fabricate emails to put a paper trails because he knew that Letic would disassociate one?
I don't think so. There's no reason to think that's a fabricated document. >> Well, President Trump did tell Marjgery Taylor Green that releasing the files
would hurt his friends. >> Yes, >> to quote her. And that's a fact because within um a few minutes of that phone
call, Marjorie told me that like the same day it happened. It it might have been an hour or two later, but Marjorie came to me and said, "This is what the
president told me." >> Yeah. >> If you made it this far into the show, it means I must be doing something right. Kib on Liberty is just one of the
amazing products we created for 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 work at freethepeople.org. And if you like what you see, donate to support what we do. That's freetheeople.org.
Now, back to the show. Anyway, I asked a bunch of uh folks on X to come up with better questions than I would have. And uh Betty has a good
question. Why the hell have they redacted the predators rather than the victims? Will we will we be able to get that information? It's blatant.
>> Okay. >> Um >> that's a good question. Uh, I want to instead of saying Todd Blanch, I want to say the DOJ when when in fact
I'm saying Todd Blanch because it's not really Todd Blanch's job. My legislation directs Pam Bondi to do this work and she is
uh I guess she's outsourced it or or assigned it to Todd Blanch. That's that's interesting in itself. You would think on something of this magnitude
where the law directs her, not Todd Blanch. that 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, you know, a few hours or
minutes of that, Roan and I sent a letter on this was Friday at 5:13 p.m. to uh the DOJ saying, "Let's set up the
meeting. Let's we want to come over. We want to see the unredacted documents." Um, and is it 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. Okay? It's it's going to probably be a pad of paper and a pen and I can go in there and and look at these
things and I'll need to know very specifically what I want to look at. I could I could bring the redacted documents. I've done this before with the 911 report um where they had 30
whole pages redacted or I don't remember how many it was 10 20 30 page many several pages of 911 report which was
supposed to be a docu public document were have been redacted for a couple decades and so I went in to read them and then um finally with a lot of public
pressure my friend Walter Jones who's now deceased was the leader of this and I was helping him on that exercise. We got those pages released. Obama released
him. We we were working on an act of Congress and um so we forced his hand. I believe
they redacted the pages they released. So I went back into the skiff with the
released pages that had been redacted and compared the re because when I re read the released pages, it didn't have the same impact on me. So 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 master class in how you can take just a
few words out of a whole page and and obuscate exactly what was going on. >> Yeah, that that that flows perfectly
into this question from Michael. Do you think the feds are actively deleting damning files that haven't been released
yet? >> 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
those u one of those attorneys would at least out of 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 that's the thing here. Um in programming and in data there's something called a check sum where at
the end of a line there's a number and if the and when you copy that line and you you know you do a hash on that that
data if you don't get the same number then you know there's a mistake in the copy. The check sum that 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. >> Yeah.
>> And by the way, >> for the uh the paid influencers out there who are paid to say, Massie, why
haven't you released the names? You said you were going to release the names. >> I got some of these questions. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I don't have the names. I never had the names. Never claimed to have the names.
the the survivors have the names and what I did was to offer to read those names on the floor of the house if we couldn't get the government to release
them. That's that wasn't the the beall end all. That's an inducement to the government to say, "Look, at the end of
all of this, we are eventually going to get these names out, but we're going to make you release them." 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. If you can tell me, are survivors uh uh 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? >> Um we So I engage at the press
conferences. I engaged 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? >> Um they are not at all happy. They are
unhappy that other survivors have been outed. I mean, they're getting calls at home >> that people who've never been public. Um so they're unhappy with that. And we did
have Roana and I did have a a Zoom call with the survivors attorneys. And when we were appealing to the judge
with an an amicus brief, we uh talked to them to make sure we were on the same page as them. And they did at that time
they said the DOJ ha and the judge had been helpful or was seemed to be cooperative about redactions. But now um
I know they're unhappy because they've asked a judge to take the whole site down because the gross incompetence of of the DOJ in terms of releasing the
information about them. You gave people a homework assignment and I want to make sure people heard this. Um, 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, um, when is that going to happen? When
do you and Roana go in? >> We don't have a date yet. >> Okay. So, everybody's getting their assignment. And if you're watching this and you're digging through these files,
as I know, like the the internet is a beautiful place for citizen journalists. It's why we know that that the virus came from a a American funded lab in
>> Wuhan. >> That they would lied about that, so they're going to lie about everything. But I I can see people digging through these things and I think I think they could give you the intelligence you need
to spend your time wisely there. >> Yeah. And um in some cases the DOJ may argue uh 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 like 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 in into Word or Notepad and see the unredacted stuff. So, they there's a
lack of competence there. Um, but in some cases, I 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. Um, it's hard to imagine it's
a victim, but what they may have done is just went through and and if they saw a woman's name, redacted it. And in so,
for instance, in the 2007 indictment, they've redacted codefendants. Like, it's 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 uh those may be women that worked for Jeffrey Epstein.
and and now I don't know if in their head the DOJ is now saying those are uh also victims.
>> You you've leaned heavily on an assumption of gross incompetence at the DOJ and I've I've done that for years. I
always instead of becoming too conspiratorial, I just assume that it's that that it's radical gross incompetence government failure. But I'm
becoming a little more conspiratorial in my old age. And these these these blacked out names that that people are everyone's complaining about. Um it
looks like they're they're covering for perpetrators. >> Well, let's find out. I mean, somebody has to look at what's been redacted. The DOJ can't check their own homework. And
uh the DOJ has offered to let us come and view these files. And so we've we've asked for a date, a time and a date to
do that. >> Yeah. So everybody's asking this question. Um but I'll I'll read AMD'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? I think um
I think it's higher than you than most people think. I 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 uh with me and Roana and told their stories and and there was already public sentiment on
our side. But I think the ground swell of support and then bringing it inside of the beltway, bringing it to the steps of the Capitol and pressuring these
people. Now, we never we never got another signature besides Marjorie Taylor Green, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boowbert and and me on the Republican
side. We were trying to get more signatures. We never compelled that to happen. But when the vote did happen, because they had bottled up this so
much, it was 427 to1 in the House and 100 to nothing in the Senate. I So, think of this as like maybe it's a 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 and research and Mike Ben's connecting the
dots and the survivors again with the sustained pressure of pointing out that the say 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. >> Yeah. And and by the way, there 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.
Um it's, you know, I don't know where your your head is at at this point. Um, I mean, the heinous
things that we've seen, I think we can bring the remaining five to 20% in the polls that don't think the Epstein files need to be released. Hopefully, now
those arguments have gone away. >> Well, it seems it seems like an argument primarily made at this point by political apparachics that want to
change the conversation. And and by the way, there's a 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." Um, 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 perwalked 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. And um, but it's 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 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 u indictment."
>> Yeah. And if they release those, that would uh there I 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 of smearing innocent people because of
lack of context and all sorts of information not not relevant to the accusations. >> I think you're seeing that being
litigated right now, for instance. So, um, let me use an example. Elon Musk, he shows up in the files, uh, 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. And that that should be the case. You know, 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 Zoro 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.
At Kib on Liberty, freedom is a lifestyle 247, 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 happen to be wearing. Go to freetheeople.org/kol and check out our exciting merch. You
too can love liberty and look cool. By the way, I'm excited to see what uh 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 the DARPA documents and and because of them, we know what
actually happened. Um they're digging into Epstein's um involvement in pandemic planning. And I I can't even
say more than that because I know there's there's some really interesting things in the 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, let me let me give you an example of somebody's name who appears in the files a dozen times at least who's 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 no conspiracy there. I mean, >> you know, my own staff compiles
uh news releases for instance for me to read uh every week that might be 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.
>> Since we're coming out of the closet, I'm in there, too. >> It's almost like Yeah. Were you doing anything if you
don't show up on the DOJ's radar? Well, I I have this uh this increasingly conspiratorial view that some of the attacks on Freedom Works back when we
were taking out um incumbent Republicans and replacing them with good guys um guys like you and Rand and and others.
Um there's a lot of stuff where they're just monitoring what's going on at Freedom Works, which is how I show up. It's all that political activity back in
the day. So, I'm I'm curious to dig a little bit deeper and see if they had um
in interest in stopping a bunch of citizens who had this really radical idea that you shouldn't spend money you don't have. >> Mhm.
>> And and I believe it to be true because that's their lifeblood. All this government money, they're feeding off of it. So, so yeah, like I I want to know I
want to know who exactly we're fighting against when we try to do something as as obvious as not spend money for um
illegal immigrant programs in Minneapolis. >> There's an argument now you know 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 is probably
expired. um statute of limitations and it would be an enducement to the government not to compile a bunch of
crap on people that had no legitimate purpose or or uh or could ever lead to a prosecution.
>> Yeah. Well, you have a heart out and we have about five t minutes left depending on um when your press guy yells at me on
camera here. But >> I want to I want to talk about uh President Trump and and there was this uh >> pretty interesting exchange he had with
a CNN reporter in what is that the it's not the Oval Office. It's where the the fancy people meet. Whoever that was.
press gallery or core. I don't I don't know the room. >> And he he had answered a couple of her questions and then then he asked then then she asked him about um um whether
or not that the victims of Epstein would be made whole. Something like that. I'm I'm butchering the question. And he took her head off
>> and and as I recall what he said is like now now that we've proven that I'm not guilty of anything, I think we just need to move on from this. as if it was about
him, >> right? As if it was about him. >> Yeah. Which that was something through the whole process that I call it five months of legislative siege warfare to
get this passed. Roana was careful not to make it about Donald Trump and I was careful not to make it about Bill Clinton because that
wasn't uh going to help the survivors who, you know, had specific billionaires and and people they had in mind that
were in these files that need to get released and possibly indictments issued. Um, and so anybody who's still
arguing red team, blue team after these files came out, it's almost like a contest to who has more mentions, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump? Who has more
pictures with women, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump? And it's it's totally missing the point. So, he missed the point in that. And then he he did he
really he just uh called her names after that. He didn't want to talk about this. still doesn't want to talk about this.
>> Yeah, it's it's it's and my point is um as far as I you know, I'm no political expert, but it strikes me that
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 I don't I don't I don't understand
the play. >> If you'd at least try not to look guilty, like you could be guilty as hell and just say, "Well, I want all these files out, right?
you know, try it that way. Um, and and maybe you'll get out of it. But if you keep looking guilty, by the way, the I
started this out and as thinking there, you know, he's not guilty at all, but the more he behaves like that, like you said, the 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 these files
came out, um $800,000 of ads were bought against me um by a super PAC that's funded by Paul
Singer, Miriam Adles, and John Paulson. They bought they had bought ads last summer, >> same day.
>> Uh yeah, within hours. >> Yeah, maybe they already had it planned. >> Sure. Um, but you could say maybe they already had it planned, but maybe they
they decided how much to spend or when to spend it, right? Um, they spent it last summer against me and into the
Epstein files. They were spending money against me before the Epstein files came out or before the legislation uh 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. Um, 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 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 and Chuck
Schumer and a whole host of, you know, the Democrat party of New York, right? 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.
um spent her radical leftist >> spent her own money to buy flyers and hand out. >> Yeah. >> Uh worked the polls, right? And then in
then she also ended up working for Campaign for Liberty and National Right to Work. By the way, those two organizations when Hillary Clinton talks
about the vast right-wing conspiracy, she doesn't know it's named Campaign for Liberty and National Right to Work. She's But those that's in that uh
constellation of what Hillary calls the vast right-wing conspiracy against whatever. >> Yeah. >> Um and then my wife worked on Senator
Paul's very first campaign. He had and mind you, he was running as the rightwing libertarian candidate versus
the Chamber of Commerce. Commerce, Chamber of Commerce, more moderate Republican >> Mitch McConnell's guy. >> It's probably 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.
Ran 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 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. So, it's funny for him. >> So, she's a manurion lefty. Like, she's
been biting her time for the last several decades. >> Faked it since the age of 18 or 17. >> That's pretty good. >> When she was working, she's >> pretty disciplined
>> on Ron Paul's campaign. >> Yeah. But I mean, he's uh um by by the way, I assume you saw that that President Trump was worrying that that
Congress was going to treat Hillary Clinton poorly. >> Oh, yeah. He had concern for Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, good friends of his. >> Yeah, >> he reminded you.
>> Yeah, he's So, he's reverted back to the guy that was writing checks for Bill and Hillary. >> He's he's getting there in in this path
that he's walking though. He's he's in the Lindsey Graham neocon uh area and going back to
>> So 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.
He he u the attack on my wife has I hate it for my wife but it's yielded $40,000 of campaign funds
>> and um 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. Um I brush it off. I I
don't hit back. I'll I'll say something humorous. The first time he attacked uh my wife by attacking my marriage, I
joked that he was mad that I we didn't invite him to the wedding. Um and this time that he attacked, I
said, you know, who knew Carolyn would get free rent in his head along with me. I guess that's one of the perks of marriage that you get free rent in the
president's head now if you're married to me. Uh we're cohabitating there. We also got to go in his head to Switzerland to the the summit there. He
mentioned me there said I needed to see on the world stage said I needed to see a psychiatrist. So with when he did that I tweeted please send me a donation so I
can get some help. >> Yeah. Like I just I just you know I try to
take it with a grain of salt because obviously the things he's saying are not true that when he says them about me. He said if you want to know how I'm polling
he says I'm at 8% 9% and 6%. I think three times he's reported that that I'm pulling in the single digits. >> Yeah. >> When in fact I am pulling ahead right
now in my race. Um, but so and and a lot of the attacks, there's two things about the attacks why I don't take them personally.
Um, number one, they're trying to intimidate other members of Congress. Do they think they're going to get me to vote for this omnibus this week by
tweeting a mean attack on my wife? There's no way in hell that's going to persuade me, right? The But then there's there's some other congressman who's
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? Um or when they run $800,000 of ads against me, you know, within hours of the
Epstein files coming out, um they're thinking, "Oh my gosh, can I win?" And then when Trump tweets, he's, 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. U so and sometimes he just copies his tweet from months ago, right?
>> Yeah. I mean, you could you could give your your social media post to, you know, uh, Grock 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." Um, there's another reason I don't take it personally.
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, um, and I know it's called, you know, it's it's super PACs and people want to get rid of this this
money that comes into it, but it still has to be reported. Miriam Adlesen has given over $200 million to Donald Trump,
and she was born in Israel. uh 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 our engagement in the sending uh money to Israel and she's getting a hell of
return on her money. I mean there 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 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 uh 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. He 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. Um, and that's why I'm not that offended. He's He's not the enemy.
>> That's what I take from the Epstein files that I've seen so far that it's a uni party club. >> Mhm. >> And you ain't in it?
>> Do Do you think that when they get to uh Epstein's Island or Zoro Ranch, they compare voter registration cards? I don't think so. It does. Once you 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 it's not a a
partisan thing. Once you get into billions, most of these guys give to both parties. Um, if you if you look at like, you know, Bill Gates and the kind
of stuff that he's funded. >> Now, I'm going to have nightmares about that. Thank you. Well, don't read the email that Jeffrey
Epstein sent to Jeffrey Epstein memorializing uh what >> Jeffrey Epstein sent to who? >> To Jeffrey Epstein.
>> Oh, he sent it to himself. >> He sent an email to himself memorializing things that he says that uh uh Bill Gates did. For instance,
don't know if it's true. Bill Gates says it's not true, but Melinda Gates uh has talked about
>> is not so sure. >> Is not so sure. Yeah. Um 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. You're
people can go find it. You can list it on the site. >> What if you have a if you have a a tough stomach, Google that. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you, sir. You gotta go.
>> Thanks, Matt. See you. >> 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.