Dave Smith: Epstein Files 2 with Thomas Massie — Part of the Problem 1438

Sep 3, 2026 · 1:14:25 dave-smith epstein transparency iran doj

Seventy-four minutes with Dave Smith: Iran vs the Constitution, the primary loss, what the first Epstein dump redacted, and Epstein Files Transparency Act II — standing for survivors and state AGs before January 3rd.

Original by Dave Smith on YouTube ↗ · Is this yours? Claim credit →

Chapters

Transcript

Download captions

Click any timestamp to jump to that moment.

Hey guys, don't forget to buy my wife's amazing children's book over at Amazon. It's called Healthy Hibernation. It's a book for little ones about eating
healthy. It's very sweet and people really love it. It's been so wellreceived. It's available in hardcover and soft cover. And yeah, like I said, it's up on Amazon.com. Healthy
Hibernation. Please go grab a copy of my wonderful wife's children's book. All right, let's get into the show.
What's up? What's up, everybody? Welcome to a brand new [music] episode of Part of the Problem. A very, very special episode that I've been very excited about uh for a couple of weeks now. Very
quickly before we start the show, a couple orders of business. Number one, tonight at 700 p.m. Eastern live, right before this show premieres on YouTube, I
will be debating Alan Derswitz on the Iran War, uh hosted by Zero Hedge. I am very excited to see what he possibly is
going to use uh what his defense will possibly be at this point of the war. So that should be exciting. And the other big piece of information is that I will be very relevant to uh today's show. I
will be coming to Kentucky. I will be that's my next stop is Louisville uh Kentucky September I believe it's 17th and 18th. ComicDavesmith.com
uh for tickets there. They're up for sale now. So go grab those. All right. Speaking of Kentucky, today on the show we have the legend uh the greatest
congressman uh serving today who is um I've I have not been shy about expressing my admiration for him. I'm so glad that he took some time to talk
about everything that's going on today. Of course, the great Thomas Massie. How are you, sir? I am doing great. And I'm excited to come to you from my congressional office because in a few
days they're going to kick me into the basement in a cubicle and repaint the walls for whoever's taking this office next. And I also want to congratulate
you. You almost said Louisville right. You got to have like you almost got it right. You didn't call it Louisville or Lewisville, but there's got to be
something stuck in your throat when you say it. Like you're Louisville. Louisville. >> Okay. I have been the the what you see there the is progress. It's a result of
progress. Like I've been there. This is like my fourth time going and every time they correct me a little bit so I improve. Like I started with all those versions and then I got through it. I'm
getting I'm circling it. I'm circling it. Okay. A couple more trips. By the end of this weekend I'm going to try to hang out enough that I leave there saying it the right way. I'm trying to try to absorb the local dialect. So,
>> it is, you know, it's it's an amazing time that we're we're living through right now. You know, like as I mentioned, I have a debate tonight on the war in Iran. I've done a lot of
these public debates over over the last few years. I I'm the internet. This is kind of the new thing. I I this is one of the first ones where I've ever been
going into it and I'm like, I don't even understand what is the possible defense here. You know, I got in an argument with uh the producer of the Steven Crowder show uh the other day on on
yesterday on Twitter, and he was saying to me, "Oh, Dave, you're wrong to say that Donald Trump broke a campaign promise." You know, he had always said
Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And I was like, "Yeah, but you're kind of leaving out the part where they explicitly ran on no new wars and every
single surrogate said there would be no new wars." And in fact, top surrogates said, "Don't vote for Camala Harris because you might get war in Iran as
Trump himself had warned with Obama." You know, so anyway, from your perspective as somebody who was correctly at this point undeniably against the 12-day war, against this war
uh that that we now find ourselves in just this disaster. What's it like to be in this moment where you're go? It's like it's almost like exactly guys and
this is why we warned you and look where we are, >> man. Uh, I would love to be in on that debate. I'm not inviting myself, but I want to give you a few a few things. U
well, first of all, with the 12-day war, the be, you know, the one that was just a light touch in the beginning. I actually wrote a war powers resolution
to stop that one, but um they didn't bring it up. We couldn't bring it up in that period of time. So, when he did the second war, they just used the one that
I had written for the first one uh because it was already in the hopper and it had already matured. Look, there's something called the 1973,
I think it is, uh, might be 74 war powers resolution or war powers act. It was actually meant to him in the president. Now they use it to say, "Oh,
this gives us extra authority to start a war without Congress." But you it has to be an emergency with like America in jeopardy before you can exercise that
clause of the 1973 war powers resolution. Um but there's also a section 5B and 5C of that act that was
passed. By the way, Nixon here here's how you know it was meant to him and the president. Nixon vetoed it and they overrode his veto. I think that's the
history on it. He certainly didn't want it because he didn't feel like it was giving the president more authority. It was supposed to give them less authority. >> Well, there's two sections in there. One
of them they argue is constitutionally dead now in light of a 1983 INS versus Chada decision at the Supreme Court where they say you can't have a
legislative veto. But they the Supreme Court has never ruled on this 1973 War Powers Act. And here's so there's two
sections in there. One of which the White House is claiming is unconstitutional. It's on the books. It's a law, but they're not going to follow it because they don't think they
have to follow it. And that's the one that says if the House and the Senate pass a concurrent resolution that says get out of this military action or war
or you know, whatever you want to call it, then the president has to withdraw. We did that and the f it's the first time in history the House and the Senate have passed the same exact language. So
it qualifies under that law as a concurrent resolution that's supposed to bind the White House. They're supposed to withdraw right now. So they've
violated that, but they're saying they don't have to obey the law because they think it's unconstitutional ever, even though it's never been ruled unconstitutional. Now, there's another provision of that law. One of these is
5B. The other is 5C, that says you can only go 90 days. So let's say you're exercising the authority under that law that says if America is in danger,
imminent threat of danger to America, you can go 60 days in a military action, by the way, without a uh congressional
authorization in the Gulf War, which was the first war in Iraq, in the war in Afghanistan, and
in the second war in Iraq. In all three instances, the president came to Congress and got authorization for that.
It wasn't a full uh you know declaration of war, but it was an authorization that for all intents and purposes satisfied that law. So that those administrations,
although they were ill ill advised and and wantless and and reckless, they did get authority from Congress. The president's not done that in this case.
So, he had 60 days to to do his thing and then um there's a 30-day grace period. So, there's 90 days. Well, what
happened on the 91st day? They said, "Oh, war is this war is over. We are done. We won." Uh and then it wasn't
until like the 92nd day they started another war and and now every time they hit Iran, they say it's a different war.
So, uh, the president may actually be right when he says we've won 12 times because he started 12 wars according to their legal theory. U, but here's what
that tells me. The they're and by the way, they had um casualty statistics that they had to revise down. They were attributing to the Iran war, I suspect.
And you we went from like 14 casualties to 18 casualties. My my numbers aren't, you know, deaths. My numbers aren't exactly right probably, but they they
rolled the number back down because they said, "Whoops, if we count all these casualties toward that initial war, we're admitting that this is one
continuous war." And by the way, the president isn't using these legal terms of art. He knows it's all one big giant war, >> but his lawyers know they're in trouble.
they're in front of their skis u and they're legally in legal peril because they are acknowledging the validity of
this law and then they are using lawyer speak to to try to get around it. So those are a couple things I would say about this war from a legal standpoint.
>> Yeah. No, no question. And would you say cuz wasn't it really it's like I'm I agree with everything you just said and then I think also like clearly by the
spirit of the law I mean the law of the land is the constitution and the congress is supposed to declare war and certainly when when it's wars that are so obviously wars of choice these are
wars that you would need congressional by any even a liberal reading of the constitution but to your point there is still a big difference between at least George W. Bush came and got some type of
of approval from Congress, but really it was Obama, I think, who started the trend of like no essentially Obama said, I'm just going to use the approval that
Bush got and say that that also applies to not only me continuing the war in Iraq, which if you actually read the the AUMF, it was against Saddam Hussein's
government in Iraq. So like it didn't make any sense that we could still use that to continue. But he used that to justify backing al-Qaeda in Libya and backing al-Qaeda in Syria and all these
things. And so I guess by the time we got to Donald Trump, you know, Obama had already set the precedent of I could just go to war with Libya and announce
it from out of the country via email or whatever. like it doesn't it and so by the time we got to Trump he just decided there's no we're there's no even
pretense of the skeleton of a constitutional republican framework where you just live under emperor wars the king can go whenever he wants
>> correct this path has is well trodden over our constitution but I would also point this out I was in Congress in 2013
when Obama and John Kerry said that Bashar al-Assad crossed the red line and we were going going to go to war with Syria. We were going to deploy troops
there and attack them like, you know, like we're doing in Iran now. And um Obama, I'm not I don't want to give him credit here, maybe it's just because he
wanted to put Congress on the spot, but he said, "I'm going to Congress to get an authorization to use military force in Syria." And uh that was in the
summer. I remember this very clearly because I got a hundred calls a day. It's the most phone calls I've ever gotten in my congressional office before or since per day from actual
constituents. Not wow people on the left coast that you know love to call my office or people from New York. A 100 constituents a day were calling saying
don't go to this don't authorize this war in Syria. And quietly John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi just withdrew that um
that measure from consideration and we never voted on it. Now, here's why Obama doesn't get any credit for being constitutional. They went and spent a
billion dollars on a secret war in Syria. Okay? According I got to say this, according to the New York Times.
Yeah. Well, there's been Look, um there's there's been a a bunch of work um written by that uh they actually just at the Libertarian Institute um if
anyone wants to check that out, they just published a book this last year about uh blanking on the name. Oh, I'm so sorry. Sorry, I'm blanking on the name, but uh they just published Natalie, if you don't mind pulling that
up. There's the the Libertarian Institute. Uh they just published a Bush on the the origins of the the Syrian war. I read it last year was fantastic.
But on the the CIA backing, what you're talking about when Obama started putting a billion dollars a year in at the beginning to back the anti-Assad rebels, which they found out very quickly and
knew who the anti-Assad rebels were. It didn't take a genius to find out who the radical Sunnis over in that region were, >> right? And u and by the way at the time
I went on CNN and had the audacity to challenge this narrative that Assad was using chemical weapons on his own people that the CNN anchor I think it was Kate
Bald Bodan Baldwin or something was a ghast. you could go back and find the look on her face when I said, "No, I don't believe he used chemical weapons
on his own people because that is the one thing that would justify us getting into that war and he doesn't want us in the war. I think it's a false flag or
just a madeup allegation." And by the way, there was an MIT professor who said the same thing. You know, they're showing you rain barrels and saying
these are rocket holes and things like that. Um and people, you know, there were co carbon uh dioxide and high
concentrations that other things that could have caused the illnesses and some deaths that happened there. Anyways, I think I was I was later proven to be
right, but nobody, you know, just quietly they went on. >> That's right. That's right. No, I remember it very well. And it made no sense at all at the time because Donald
Trump had already announced that we were going to withdraw troops from Syria. the civil war was was coming to an end. So essentially Bashar al-Assad had been
fighting for his life to not go down like Marar Gaddafi for years and years and years and had conducted a very bloody civil war. I mean he was certainly guilty of war crimes as well.
Um but conducted this huge effort to save his own life and then when he's won he would do the one thing that would guarantee that the Americans wouldn't
leave. It just made no sense. And then of course after you came out and took that stand, there were a couple whistleblowers at the OPCW who came out and said, "Yep, they suppressed a bunch of information that made it look like
this was a chemical attack launched by by Bashar al-Assad. It was in a rebel controlled area." And there was lots of evidence to suggest that it it wasn't a
an attack from the sky. So it just didn't add up. Aaron Mate uh over at uh The Nation did some excellent um reporting on this. Highly recommend that. So yeah, it's always always be
skeptical when they come up with this this scenario that goes, "Wait, really? So you're telling me that they did the one thing that would be completely only
in the interest of the military-industrial complex?" H that's that's convenient. >> All right, guys. Let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show,
which is BodyB Brain Coffee. If you're already drinking coffee every morning, you might as well make that cup work harder for you. Bodybrain coffee is
amazing. I've been drinking it for months and telling you about it. But now the creamer is here and it takes that regular coffee or even better body brain coffee and turns it into a smooth,
creamy, super functioning cup of coffee that actually tastes great. It's packed with functional ingredients like C8 MCT
oil for a quick source of energy. Cortiseps for performance and endurance support. Rodeiola for stress, fatigue, and mental performance. And collagen to
support skin and connective tissues. Plus cinnamon. And unlike a lot of creamers out there, Body Brain Creamer is sugarf free, dairy free with a
coconut milk base that gives your coffee that smooth, rich creaminess you actually want from a creamer. But the real move is stacking it with BodyBrain
coffee. That's what I do. I have a cup every day of BodyBrain coffee with the creamer. I feel better than I ever have. No handful of pills, no sludge from a mushroom, no injections, no supplements,
none of that. just a smooth, delicious, creamy cup of coffee packed with ingredients designed to support your daily routine. So, please go support this uh company. As I've told you, it's
the brainchild of Louisis J. Gomez, the guy who convinced me to start standup and podcasting. Bodybrain coffee.com is where you go. The promo code is Dave 20
for 20% off your order. One more time, bodybrain coffee.com, promo code Dave20 for 20% off. All right, let's get back into the show. But while while we're
talking about the AUMFs, the other crazy thing that's happened that people just kind of went on and ignored, the most expensive, lavish, biggest US embassy on
the planet is in Iraq. And it's because they they knew if they planted that there we would never leave
because then you would have the images of it being overrun by you know >> right >> rebels or or whatever savages you know
overtaking a US embassy with the flag being burned and taken down. So they planted the biggest most expensive embassy US embassy in the world in Iraq
as a sign that we're never leaving. And then they use the Iraq AUMF to kill Solommani and say that well there's a war in Iraq and this AUMF covers that
even though we're killing somebody from another country. >> Yeah. That's right. That's right. As we got to and and even I mean just the fact
that we got to kill the we we overthrew Saddam Hussein the Sunni Ba'ist and and put into power the the Shiite militias
who were most closely linked with Iran. we handed Baghdad to Thran and then we sit here and go, well, that's why we have to kill the leader of this uh uh
Shiite militia or whatever the the the Iranian general. Um I wanted to so another piece of information that I found uh kind of interesting. So, of
course, uh famously you when you uh um were well, let's just say unseated by the Israel lobby uh in your congressional district, a district that
you had won over and over and over again with widewide majorities. And in fact, even I had looked back over the numbers recently, even in 2020 when you
committed the heinous crime of being good on the ridiculous spending bills uh that led to so much of the price inflation that has just destroyed
American families over the last 5 years. Uh there was one congressman, I'm sorry, let the record show, there was one congressman who stood up and demanded a vote and railed against this and said,
"This is this is insane." while the president was bragging about how it's the biggest bill ever. But Donald Trump turned over on you over this in 2020. Sent his supporters to attack you.
Attacked you in very vicious ways. You won your primary with 82%. >> Yeah. Vote that year. 81%. Excuse me. >> 81%. Um and he said I should be thrown
out of the GOP. Um yeah, you know, and it was a serious opponent like you know, he checked the boxes. Um he wasn't like
some gadfly. Uh he was actually the attorney for uh Nicholas Sandman who was somewhat of a celebrity and a hero in my
district. Uh he was the one who, you know, was on a prolife protester who had the Native American banging the drum in
his face and he sat there without responding. Anyways, yeah, this that was a livefire exercise and I got 81%. And by the way, a year before I lost this
this primary here in Kentucky, my fave unfaved, we poll these things, right? Was 6212. Okay, that means if you say, are you
very favorable, somewhat favorable, and add those two numbers and say, are are you somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable, add those two numbers, the
the ratio of those two added numbers was 62 to 12 in the district. >> Yeah. And uh which my pollsters are like, "Oh my gosh, we've we we don't see
these kind of numbers anywhere in any district." And then um what happened is for nine months. So they started I believe in June June almost a full year
before the primary, they started running negative ads nonstop, like $2 million of ads 10 months before my primary. And
obviously I didn't have the money. Normally I have about $200,000 in my campaign account. You know, that's by war chest. So I have like $200,000 in my
campaign account. They didn't even have an opponent to run against me. There was nobody filed. And it was the Israeli lobby. It was Miriam Adon's money. They
started spending it 10 months, >> maybe 11 months before my primary. And as we pulled, we watched my fave unfave
go just go down down down until it flipped. You know, when you're when you're in the incumbent and you go underwater and that was their whole goal, just to like open up with the
beltfed machine gun of lies and keep, you know, suppressive fire because you can't do that overnight either. You can't pounce on somebody six weeks
before the election and change the outcome. And so it was concerted effort, but that's okay. You know, um I've said
this privately, I'll say it for the first time here, I think, publicly. Uh you know, I'm a widowerower. Uh I was married to my high school sweetheart for
31 years. We were together 33 years. And um she's in heaven. And you know, she she built superconductors in high
school, right, on her farm. She could do differential equations. If if there's anybody God lets advise uh on outcomes
on earth when they get to heaven, I think it would be my wife. And I'm convinced she was instrumental in getting me out of Congress because it's the best thing for my soul. So, I have
no animosity toward the the liars and the cheats and the people who spent $30 million their money to take me out. I think they were just her tools to save
me from this. Because look Dave, I'm a I'm a focused I'm like a you know I'm an engineer by training. I have attention
focused disorder. I will focus on problems and keep working on them way past the time when you know most people would give up. I would be up here
stroking out like McConnell in 20 years if they hadn't beat me. >> I've been sir I've been informed he's absolutely fine and I see no reason not
to I see no reason to suspect that uh they would be hiding anything. Well, that's >> by the way, he's he's inspired a term limit bill that I may introduce before I
leave. I'm going to call it three strokes and you're out. [laughter] >> Federman's on deck. >> That's not That's not bad. Federman's on deck. You got one left, buddy. You're
pushing it. Well, listen, that's a very beautiful thought. I just it kind of made me feel bad because I was like I think maybe your wife is in heaven and she's trying to be your guardian angel
and get you out of Congress and then me and everybody I know are just trying to get you to do something even harder in uh another year. I apologize for that.
We're trying to >> She knew that would happen. She knew that would happen. She knew I would fight my guts out too to stay here which I did. I did everything I could. Look
>> No, you did. Well, look, I will say one of the things, first of all, I really appreciate it, even in the spirit of what you just said right there. I I want I I I said this publicly on the show. I
said this privately to a lot of people that there was something I really just loved about the spirit of your speech that you gave after it. It was like I think you Yeah, you did fight hard. You
accepted what happened. And I think part of what there was something kind of beautiful about it. And one of the things that was beautiful, it's like these things in life. It's kind of a
double-edged sword. It it definitely stung that they were able to do that. Um it it hurt to find out some some kind of painful truths which is that hey man
there still are a lot of boomers you know in in a lot of these districts. They still are only getting their news from Fox News. They are hearing from Mark Leavvin and they're simply not
hearing the other side of the the the story and everyone who does hear the other side of the story gets convinced by that. But one of the things but so it was like okay that kind of sucks. It
turns out money still matters. The the Israel lobby pumping in 30 plus million dollars and Fox News having a blackout like the Murdoch and the that they all
still have some power. >> Yeah. >> But man, when you look at the numbers of the breakdown by age like this was it
was unbelievable to see it had it literally I'm not exaggerating when I say it only worked on the boomers. It works on nobody younger than that. Now,
because of that name, boomers, understand there are a lot of them. That is the main thing that kind of characterizes that generation. But what
however you feel about it, there's becoming less and less of them of them over the over the years. And it was unbelievable, man. 50 and under, everybody's with you. 40 and under, it
was like the numbers were like insane. And then 30 and under, it's like there I don't even think it registers on the It was like 90 plus%. And there was
something about that to me, man, that was so like I don't care what side of the issue you're on. If you're telling me who would I rather take, everyone
over 55 or everyone under 55, obviously if you're banking on the future, you want everybody under. And so that was
just extremely encouraging to me and I'm sure it was for you, too. >> Yeah. I mean, the future is with us. Uh but it also, you know, I'm an inventor.
Um, I've got 30 patents and this this election gave me an idea for another invention. Uh, the the boomers watch Fox in their living room and in their
kitchen. I'm going to invent a CPAP machine that you can watch Fox on. U, and I'm telling you, I'll sell millions
of them. [laughter] >> But then we got to get it like like maybe it'll break into like a podcast every now and then or something like that. I do say though, listen man,
>> there I do say like I think this is something I try to tell the people. um out there. There there is a little bit of an obligation here on us where we got
this new thing where like we have a new decentralized media where the we're outside of the propaganda machine. You got if you got a boomer in your life
who's a good person, try to work on them if you can let them hear the other side of this because I'm telling you a lot of what this is is that people just, you
know, if you only hear from say Mark Levin or something like that and he's telling you, hey, this Thomas Massie guy has lost his mind. You know how you used to like him? I know, but now he's become
crazy and he's off on this. It's fairly easy for someone to just go like, oh wow, I didn't realize Thomas Massie. And then they see a clip out of context. then they see an AI generated video and
they don't even understand what AI is. You know, I I was saying to um my mother-in-law, my wife's mother the other day. Um she's a boomer, you know, and I just used the term CGI about a
movie and she went, "What's that?" >> And I went, "No, you know, CGI, like when it's fake in the movie, like what you see isn't really happening there. Forget AI." She had never even heard of
the term CGI. They're they just are unaware of this stuff. You know, >> when when you say you're using AI in rural Kentucky, it means you're
artificially inciminating your cows. [laughter] Like that's what AI means in rural Kentucky. And so when you when you throw up the words AI or even the whole word,
you know, artificial intelligence, that could also be the name of the super PAC, it's like in the same font. >> And I I had
>> older people come up to me at my rallies. These were supporters and they said, "I don't care if you went on a date with AOC and Ilhan Omar. You've got
the most conservative voting record. I'm still going to vote for you, but it really bothers my neighbor." And I I've this I literally had a woman tell me
that. I was like, "Ma'am, the commercials are not real." And she looked at me like, "Really? How did they how did they get that video of you
checking into the hotel with them and go and at the restaurants?" And I'm like, I try to explain it to her and she says, "Wow, >> well, now I'll go tell my neighbor
because she said she's not voting for you because she saw that video, but I was going to vote for you anyway." >> And you know, and >> that's when I knew
>> it worked. I thought I honestly when I saw it, I thought it would backfire. I thought this is so ridiculous >> that it will. >> It makes me angry. It makes me angry
because keep in mind it and I hope everyone keeps in mind it's not that lady's fault. Like that's not on her. It's on them and being manipulative. Like, it's not a reasonable expectation
to, and believe me, I give the boomers a lot of crap as a generation, but it is an unreasonable expectation that like a 73year-old is supposed to figure out
that, oh, wait, you can generate images now that look just lifelike and look like like there's it is a totally reasonable expectation that if I saw a picture of someone in a political ad,
that that's a real picture. They wouldn't be allowed to show that to me if it wasn't a real p. like there. It's just Anyway, it's it's something to keep in mind that Oh, no. Bless you. It's
something to keep in mind that a lot of those uh people really have been uh manipulated by by all of this. All right, guys. Let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show,
which is Hexclad. I don't know about you guys, but one of my favorite parts of the summer is grilling. I love to do it. I do it as much as I can every single summer. But the grilling season doesn't
end at the end of summer. Okay? The kids might be back in school, but we still got at least a couple more months of grilling. And it's still worth it to check out the Hexclad's barbecue
collection if you have not already. Hexclad has brought their hybrid technology outdoors this year with products specifically designed to make grilling easier, especially when you're
cooking foods that normally don't cooperate on the traditional grill. The Hexclad barbecue pan combines the searing power of stainless steel, the
durability of cast iron, and the convenience of nonstick, all in one versatile grilling pan. The perforated design lets heat and smoke flow through,
so vegetables, seafood, fish, and kebabs still get that smoky grilled flavor without falling through the grates. They've also launched their new barbecue
grill topper, which gives you even more control when cooking delicate foods, veggies, seafood, or multiple portions at once. And if you're looking for the complete setup, HexFret offers the
barbecue bundle featuring the barbecue grill pan, hybrid cutting board, and the carving set. So you have everything you need to grill, prep, carve, and serve
without constantly running back and forth to the kitchen, which as you guys know, can can get annoying. So for a limited time, our listeners can get 10% off your order with our exclusive link.
Just head over to hexcloud.com/pros. Once again, that's hexclad.com/pro for 10% off. All right, let's get back
into the show. >> To clear the air and and I I swear I swear this is true. I really did this. Um I went to AOC and and asked if she
had seen the video and she laughed and said yes. And I said, I just want you to know I would never go on a three-way date with Ilhan Omar. [laughter]
>> That's the That's the limit. >> Yeah. And and she thought it was funny. So, I'm not being censured today in Congress. She She laughed. >> Okay. Very good. Very good. She laughed.
It's a risky It's a risky move making a joke with AOC, sir. You never know. But if she likes it, if she laughs, then it's good. But if not, then you're a me too something predator. Um, so that's
that's good to know. So, I wanted um I'm sorry, there's one more um point I wanted to make on the uh the Iran stuff before moving on. Um it's whatever.
Let's let's move on to Epstein a little bit here. So, I want to talk about the Epstein uh files part two. the Epstein Files Transparency Act 2 and uh maybe
even a bit about the uh the first one. Let let me start here knowing as you do know very well that
the Dow Jones is currently over 30,000. Why are you doing this, man? Like who cares about child sex trafficking when when you're environment now if we were
at 29,000 I could understand this. And yet even even here >> I'm sorry I just saw that video was going viral again today. Great. One of
the greatest testimonies of all time. Oh my god, it was just it led to so many glorious memes. >> I was there. I was in that hearing,
right? She was in front of me when that all happened. I tried to ask her serious questions about when, you know, they had redacted Leslie Wexner's name and
picture. And, you know, they protested, oh well, he appears, you know, several hundred times in the files and we didn't redact his name on purpose. I said,
"Yes, but this is the FBI document that says he's a co-conspirator in a child sex trafficking case. That is the one place where you redacted his name." So,
I asked Pam Bondi what I thought was an obvious question after I forced them to unredact it through public humiliation
was um who redacted this? Like, they didn't take a five gallallon bucket of Sharpies and a bunch of interns and throw them in a room with a bunch of
documents, right? This is all done on a computer by people who have limited access. They're tracking me when I go over to the DOJ. They've got a unique
login for me. They know every one of those files I've looked at. They know every redaction I've tried to unredact while I'm over there. So, they know
everybody who redacted everything. That would be the question. If Jim Jordan really cared about what is going on, we
would have that answer tomorrow. Which person at DOJ redacted that? because it could be a lowest learner type. She's she's the one sort of famous middle
management at IRS who targeted the Tea Party on the 501c3 applications and and claims to be a free agent, you know, that she was self-directed when she was
doing these things. There could be somebody that's self-directed at DOJ who's doing nefarious things in there. Does nobody care?
And and I know they track these things. So, anyways, I did ask Pam Bondi a serious question. Um, so let me talk about the first bill and the second
bill. The first bill caused the release of three million files. Okay? And a lot of things are known that were not known
and would if if I hadn't been here in Congress, it would have absolutely never happened. I'm not taking full credit.
There were three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boowart, and Nancy Mace. All three of them have paid a huge price. Okay. Trump vetoed Lauren
Boowbert's water bill, you know, that would bring water to arid parts of Colorado just out of spite, right, for that. Nancy Mace uh could have won her
governor's race. She could have gotten possibly could have gotten the Trump endorsement. She for forewent that by co-signing this. And Marjorie Taylor
Green's no longer in Congress. This was the breaking point for Trump. He was like, >> her family threatened >> her her kids. Yeah. And she and you know
Trump wanted when he said you're no longer my supporters. He was also talking about his biggest supporter Marjorie Taylor Green. They all paid a
tremendous price. But this would not happen. There would not be three million files. And it took so many miracles
honestly for me to get this done for this to happen that it makes me more spiritual to uh the path that I took and
the improbability at four or five points in that path uh where it was like a hundred to one and I won. It's like I
won the lottery four times in a row on certain things that had to happen to get this done. So, I got it done. But, um, and then everybody's like Monday morning
quarterbacking the bill and saying, "Well, you should have done this. You should have done that. You could have done this. Why didn't you give the standing to Congress or the victims or
whatever?" I have two answers to that. Number one, we wrote the bill in one day. Okay? from from the moment at which
I realized it was possible and and conceived of how I could get it done to when we got it in the hopper was less than 24 hours.
>> And we did not consult anybody. Frankly, we did this all on our own here in my office. I tell people the
Epstein Files Transparency Act is probably the only bill that's ever passed Congress without being touched by a lobbyist or one of the permanent staff
here in Washington DC which I call the deep congress. Like we literally got this done wrote written and put in the hopper before anybody knew it was
coming. And that was part of the element of of getting this done was the element of surprise um which I had to maintain. But I will and then so that's the first
thing. We we didn't have a lot of time to write it. We wrote it all by oursel and boy it it actually worked pretty well. And then people say why didn't you
do this or that or this? Well we we you know we threaded a needle on this thing. If it had been any more comprehensive,
it might have gotten choked down at some point with some objection. You know, I had to get every Democrat to agree to this. And so, you know, and some of
those Democrats are honestly neocon police state like, you know, when they're in the majority, they chair the
intel committee, they chair the armed services committee. Th trust me, those people were worried about the Epstein files. those Democrats and I still got
them to do it. So, it was I think the biggest thing we could do and still get it passed with all of these contingencies. All right. But here's
what we've realized with the benefit of hindsight and also with the momentum on our side. I worked with the uh attorneys
for the survivors. I worked with the attorney general from the state of New Mexico and other attorneys who have uh been involved in this case and cases
like the these and we perfected the first bill. I never anticipated, by the way, that the the the chief law
enforcement officer of the United States would not enforce a law that was passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president. But that's where we are. Pam Bonnie and Todd Blanch are not
enforcing the law. So here's what we >> can I just just before I'm sorry to interrupt but before we go into the second one because I think that's really worth um accentuating for a little bit here. So we got three million documents
of course there there are as you pointed out they're heavily redacted and we know at least has been confirmed redacted in inappropriate illegal ways at least a
few times where they're not supposed to be. Um there's more details that you've done a lot of interviews on this where even when you go to the unredacted rooms there's redactions there. this but and
and correct me if I'm wrong because this is my understanding of it that the law is very clear. There are like a couple of exceptions like um you can redact to
protect victims and you can redact like for for national security or something like that, right? Um and now there's just 3 million more documents that
they're simply not releasing that are completely in violation of the law. There's essentially no defense even like I haven't even seen an argument offered as to why it is legal for for them to
keep that. Correct me if I'm wrong again. So they're just not showing us >> the other three million. >> So very very lowkey. They have actually
>> they've covered their ass. Okay. Okay. >> They they would not tell you there were three million other documents if unless they thought not disclosing that might s
get them in jail one day. Right. That's the only reason they're telling you they're only giving you three of the six million and they don't think you need the other three million, right? That and
they and you're correct. For the most part, they haven't given any legal reason for withholding those with one exception. They have given a very
strained legal reason for why they're withholding the documents we care about the most and the documents that they are required by law to release which are
specifically called out in the first bill. Uh we say in the first bill, you have to release internal memos and emails and documents about your
decisions whether to prosecute and whether to investigate because clearly they got on the trail sometimes and then just walked away from the trail.
>> Clearly there were uh uh DAs in New York who were urging the DOJ to investigate
to prosecute some people and they were not doing it. There were decisions made and that's at the heart of this. Why did they give Epstein such a light sentence
the first time? Where are those documents? Somebody discussed that somewhere. We want those documents. Why did they not continue to pursue Leslie
Wexner which they had or uh Grath uh Leslie Grath who was his, you know,
right-hand woman, not a victim. Some of these victims were were caught up in the whole thing. And I'm not blaming them, but Leslie Grath was clearly one of
these people who was just serving uh men up women on a menu from these so-called modeling agencies, right? She was in
that pipeline making that happen. But why did and they had her listed as a co-conspirator on these documents. That's another one that they had
redacted that we got unredacted. Okay. Why did Where was the decision to quit pursuing that? Now, here's they've made a low-key legal argument. It's like in a
informal memo they sent to Congress, but twice I've seen them say this, and it's just they that's so they can go back and find it and cover their ass one day.
They say these are protected by deliberative process privilege. Now, here's why that does not work. Deliberative process privilege is is a
figment of the Freedom of Information Act that they came up with uh to deny you certain things. When you do a Freedom of Information request, you'll
see some things redacted in your FOYO files and they'll have, you know, a section, a rule abbreviated. Well, it's deliberative process. What they claim is
they don't have to give show you their uh their homework. They just got to give you the final exam and the and the result of it. They don't have to show their work. But we put in the bill that
you have to show us these decisions. Okay? But we called it decisions, internal memos about decisions in the
bill and they are say they're exerting deliberative process and they're saying deliberations are different from decisions. I don't
know what their legal argument is that says they can assert that. I can tell you this though, it wouldn't stand up one minute in front of a judge. Like no
judge there there, by the way, this is another concept of law that I hope everybody gets that a new law,
it doesn't have to repeal the old law, right? We don't have to repeal deliberative process. We you could a new law overrides the old law in every
instance where the new law applies, >> right? And that is the case with the Epstein files. If you have any doubt of that, three federal judges were asked by
the DOJ. I think the DOJ was hoping for a different answer. But after Epstein Files Transparency Act passed and was signed into law, the DOJ went to the
three federal courts and said, "Can you give us your material, your grand jury material, and and stuff like that, hoping that they would invoke, I think
it's rule 6E, and say, no, you can't have that." All three judges in three, they went 0 for three. All three judges says, "Oh, as a matter of fact, the way
law works is when a new law passes, it overrides the o old law." And so rule 6E no longer applies in the context of Epstein files and here's all the files
and the the judges gave all those files to the DOJ and they had to release them. And so that that's so that's why I know
this their their legal argument for withholding the documents we care about the most will fall flat. So uh and then that's also now we have to kind of that
will be a good that would be a good pivot into the new law. >> Okay. Yeah. Sure. Well, look, I I'll just say this real quick on the old one before and then let's let's get to the new one. Um number one, I mean it is
just it's hard to overstate. I don't know that there's ever been a political scandal that I've ever lived through that's looked worse than this. That
that's just Now I'm even saying short of like it even with the 3 million documents that have been released, there's still so much that is a question
mark. I mean there's so much in like when I say like look obviously they li the administration just lied over and over again. They lied about their promises to be transparent. Then they
lied about what they actually had. than if you remember there's one point where Pam Bondi claims on camera that there's hundreds of hours of Jeffrey Ebstein.
She said it was kitty porn and Jeffrey Ebstein himself with children. She made this claim once by the way. Um
hold on tab that. Let me I got to insert this. She lied to my face in her office in front of Jim Jordan and every other
Republican on the judiciary committee in front of Todd Blanch, Harit Dylan, Dan Bonino, who were all in the room. And this was the impetus when people say,
"Why didn't you do this sooner?" Because I've never been lied to my face by the attorney general in such a blatant manner. Um, she told me they had a
special dinner. I am on the judiciary committee. This is just another twist of fate. Why is a nerd from MIT, how does he get on the judiciary committee?
Right? It's because there are gorillas up here in DC on K Street fighting about patents and I've got 30 patents and in
the land of the blind, the oneeyed man is king. So even though I don't have a legal degree, I'm the only person in judiciary that knows what's up and down on patents. Right. So uh so that's like
how I got on the judiciary. She said, "So, what did she say to you in that?" >> Yeah. I And by the way, I tried to clear it with Jim Jordan before I asked the
question. On the way over, I I said, "Jim, uh I know this is like a getting to know you meeting and uh we're
supposed to be nice in this meeting and it's just about making a personal connection with the DOJ since we have oversight of the DOJ in our committee.
But I really want to ask this question about the Epstein files because she has released the binders and then she's
there's nothing else and she's saying these and he and he said, "Um, Massie, you do you. I I know better than to try to tell you what to do." So, we get over
there and we get done eating. It was a dinner meeting. They have their own china at the DOJ with a DOJ logo on the plate. So, you're literally eating off
of a DOJ plate and there's a whole cadre of judiciary members and it's like, "Okay, it's question time." And I
believe, if memory serves me correct, no, nobody else would say anything at that moment. So, I like asked the first question. I think it was the very first
question. Um, and I said, you know, you released those binders and some files. When can we ex and you said there's more coming.
when can we expect to see the rest? And she goes, "Oh my goodness, it's nothing but pornography and seam
material and nobody would want to see it." And what do you say to that? No, show me the pornography, right? Like she
obviously at that point I couldn't have a follow-up question. like, well, and but I walked away from that dinner thinking, mm- this is not true. She just
lied to me. >> And that's the beauty of that lie is that it's the perfect lie to just go, "Oh, oh, it's all child porn." Because
then it gets any normal person to go, "Oh, all right. Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't show that to anyone then, man." It's like the one thing you could say that would be like, "Oh, okay, fine." Like yes, obviously you don't want to
put that out there, but like so so this is one of the thing one of the things I would say that's been revealed from the the first Epstein Files Transparency
Act. One of them is that they were hiding a ton of stuff that was not what Mike Johnson said will bring down the political order or was a threat to
national security. It was simply stuff that looked really, really bad that we kind of still don't have answers to. stuff like his urologist emailing him,
"Bring 9year-olds in grape soda." Huh? You know, like what what is one to do with that information other than speculate like about what the hell is
going on here? All right, guys. Let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Prize Pick. Football is finally back and Prize Pick
is bringing out their best offer yet. New users who sign up will get $150 in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup.
That's right. If you win your first $5 lineup, you get $150 in lineups. And now prize picks is available nationwide. So, what are you waiting for? Lock in for
kickoff because everyone and everything is on prize picks. Prize picks, if you guys don't remember, it's very easy. You just pick two to four players and then
you pick more or less than their projected stats like pass yards, rush yards, fantasy score. So, if there's a running back, you can bet on whether
he's going to get more or less than 100 rushing yards for the game. It's very easy. You don't really have to understand the game's intricacies that well. It's just going to make watching
the game more fun because you got something to root for. You throw a few bucks down. And if you do really understand the game, it just makes it that much more fun, too. And you got to check out the 2026 NFL Stacked
September. Prize Pix is going crazy with the deals to start the football season, giving users a new promo every day during Stacked September. Make sure to
sign up now for guaranteed picks every Sunday along with profit boosts and daily discounts throughout the month. So download the app today and use the promo
code POTP to get $150 instantly in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup. So all you got to do is get the Prize
Pix app. Download that today and use the promo code POTP to get that $150 instantly in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup. Prize Pick, run your
game. All right, let's get back into the show. >> Or um Howard Lutnik going taking his kids to Epstein Island for lunch after he had said to camera just weeks before
he was a disgusting individual and I never had anything to do with him after the first meeting. Or Bill Gates >> li his >> Bill Gates slipping his wife antibiotic
roofies to hide some, you know, disease he caught from prostitute somewhere. or at least Jeffrey Epstein claimed that
and was using it in a draft email that he was maybe going to send to him. Like again, I'm trying my best here to be open to explanations, but what exactly
is the explanation for that? Now, the other thing I got to say that I I thought, and this was look, if I'm just being completely honest here, the thing that I kind of had in my mind about
Jeffrey Ebstein before you ever got these files released from what I had known of him was, I think essentially what a lot of people had. You were like, "Okay, I know some details about this.
This seems really shady. It seems really shady that a guy happens to out of nowhere get hired by uh Bar's father who's an intelligence guy and he gets
put at this elite school Dalton when he's really not credentialized for that. And then just a few years later, he's essentially like a partner at Bayer Sterns and then he's on his own. This
seems very intelligency. You know, this doesn't seem organic." And then you have um the the of course what he he's convicted for soliciting prostitution
from an underage uh uh um you know soliciting prostitution from a child uh however you want to dress that up. Um and so he's convicted of that. These
powerful men he's in this nexus. They still hang out with him. I had heard that there were cameras on his property and I had heard the uh the alleged Aosta quote about how he's intelligence. And
so in my mind, what this always seemed like, what I speculated, as a lot of people did, was like, "Oh, this seems almost like a MSAD blackmail ring where
you're trapping people and then you're threatening them with dirt." And look, he's so clearly connected to Wexner and and Glain Maxwell's father is a MSAD
guy. And so this just seemed to me to be the case, like, oh, he's running like a MSAD type operation. I got to say once I looked through the files it almost seems
like something different that might be much bigger than that where I've got like now I've got Alex Derswitz, Les Wexner and him himself all claiming he's
a representative of the Rothschilds who is like negotiating he's the guy who's connecting the former Israeli head of defense with Peter Teal and he's the guy
who's connecting MSAD with the Russians and I'm just saying congressman you know when people will say guys like Ron Paul and you you never got anything done. You
just sit there and say no. All you do is say the government shouldn't do this next terrible thing that they do that then turns into a catastrophe. But I got to say, you know, looking at the Epstein
files, I think probably what you've done here is at least already given us more of a glimpse into how power actually works at the elite level. It's a little
bit more than I was taught how a bill becomes a law. You know, it turns out there's a little bit more to it than that. And I I think all Americans should
be indebted to you for revealing this. >> I don't think anybody has ever gotten a bill passed through both chambers with both leaders of both chambers and the
president against the bill of their own party, right? Like it's a the path I chose is the hardest path. It to if
you're a squish when you get here, they give you bills. You have no idea what they are and you get them passed and you go home and you look good. It was just something the deep state wanted. Anyway,
u this is is highly irregular. But let me let me tell you on the intel thing that was that was my hunch and still is.
But I introduced five or six documents into the record before we had the Epstein files when Cash Patel was sitting in front of me in a hearing in
judiciary. Again, the fact that this nerd from MIT is able to ask Merrick Garland and Christopher Ray and Delbach
and [clears throat] and Cash M Pat Mattel and Pam Bondi. They they ru the day. they ever let me on that committee because in five
minutes I I can like show so many things like I did I showed a video to to Biden's attorney general of uh who was
the guy saying go into the capital or whatever. Don't even say his name because then they'll Yeah. Anyway, >> Ray something. Yeah, Ray Essays. That's
right. it look he was clearly fmenting violence there and he got off with the slap on the wrist or suddenly like there it's anyways I'm the one who showed the
video to Merrick Garland and said how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 6th >> like but anyways it's a miracle that I'm
in those comm that committee and I and I introduced into the record in front of Cash Patel five pieces of evidence in the public domain that showed that
Jeffrey Epstein was likely MSAD and CIA. Look, he had meetings with Obama's CIA director.
>> Like that was that was known already. >> So, >> yeah, that's that's highlevel connections, man. I mean, I've tried to
get meetings with Obama's CIA director and I've never been able to, you know, it's like it's not that easy for just anybody to to pull these meetings off. >> By the way, I want to I hate to
acknowledge the trolls on the internet, but this this one is for them. There's not one member of Congress on the Republican side that's done 1% of what
I've done. And right now the impetus is the the onus I should say is on Trump's administration.
Like just admit it. He has all of the redactions. He's got the other three million files. What? Don't blame the one dude. This is how I know they're trolls.
They're blaming the one dude that got all this set into motion, right? And it's up to them now. And then as far like before we go to the second bill too
as far as like reading the names there they say oh those names are already out there. Yeah they're in phone books. U are they in the Epstein files? Of course
you would expect to see names in the Epstein files of perpetrators. When I read those names on the floor what I am telling you is I have other information
that shows they are guilty. I have to protect my sources. Those people are guilty. They need to be, you know, I'll
I'll hold out a 1% chance that they're not guilty because you're innocent until proven guilty in this country. So, you know, they that's why I say they need to
be investigated and then prosecuted. But the DOJ is doing none of that. They're not doing any investigations on
on these individuals. So, um yeah, we we knew those names. Go look in a phone book. You can find those names. my names in the Epstein files for trying to get
the Epstein files released, right? uh there there is new information even though those names are findable there is
there is new information conveyed and I'm doing so at risk to my health and life and well-being and financial well-being later in life to go out and
call out these powerful people as being guilty and and uh worthy of investigation and prosecution.
>> Yeah. No, absolutely. So now tell us about the part two bill and what is that going after? >> So part two is the bill I would have
written with Roana and Terresa Ledger Fernandez is also a co-sponsor. She's from New Mexico. That's an important state in this story. That's where Zoro
Ranch is. F team Files Transparency Act number two includes the things that if I had a crystal ball I would have included
in the first one but I didn't anticipate. You can't know how everything's going to turn out. Um,
number one, it allows the attorney general in the state of New Mexico to use Epstein files in a prosecution in
state courts for state crimes for which the statute of limitations has not expired. And Zoro Ranch is as massive
and expansive and is involved in the whole Epstein saga as as much or more so than Epstein Island. Okay. Uh it's got
an airirstrip. Uh uh Epstein's former pilot still lives there or did uh very recently at the edge of the ranch. U
there's it's it is as if uh they were there yesterday. There's I'm told there's still a painting like a naked
painting of Gelain Maxwell on the wall that all of these books are still on the shelves like and and they have done they
have gone in there uh the New Mexico investigators but something unprecedented is happening. the federal
attorney general is not cooperating with the state attorney general and this is like unprecedented. Uh usually it's just sort of a peruncter, hey can you send us
these files? Yeah. And they get the files within two weeks if they need some help prosecuting somebody. So this bill um you know I I met personally in my
office the attorney general from New Mexico. He has been stonewalled by Todd Blanch. And so this bill gives him unfettered access to the files so that
he can prosecute crimes that happened at Zoro Ranch. >> Oh wow. So this has got real teeth on it this time. Like we're going after who we can prosecute. I love this.
>> The real teeth. If you want a prosecution and you and you've given up on Trump's administration, we've got a prosecutor who is ready to
go after it. Okay? and we've got a crime site that's still there. Um, and you know,
there's a lot of there there. The other thing it does is it clears up this discrepancy that the it's semantics. The
attorney general is trying to say that deliberative process privilege was not pierced when if it existed at all. By the way, I don't acknowledge that it
wasn't pierced by our bill when we said that you have to release the files that show your decisions about whether to prosecute or investigate. This this an
unambiguous term says that you cannot assert deliberative process privilege. So that's in the bill that will cause the relief. And by the way, any judge
would say that if you could get in front of a court and so there's there's a third dimension to this bill. It gives standing to three categories of
litigants in the courts. And by the way, and it doesn't have to be in the DC district court. This is like a very lopsided court here in DC, as you can
imagine. You'd much rather, you never see a good freedom ruling or justice ruling come from the DC district, right? It's always like uh fifth circuit, sixth
circuit, or one of these districts in Texas or Kentucky or Ohio or something. never never from the ninth, you know, circuit. I think that's the one out in
California that includes so many liberal areas and liberal judges. And so, um, it gives standing to survivors because
here's another category of those 3 million files that are still being withhold, 302 forms that the FBI must complete after they've interviewed a witness or a victim. U, this the
survivors looked in these files. I don't see my file. Where's my file? I I did an interview. Where is it? Or I see my file, but I need to see beyond the
redactions because this was my experience and I need to know how I was harmed. A lot of time has passed and I wanted and I want to know what I said to
the FBI, what they you know what they also did they faithfully record what I told them, >> right? Uh so those those files are
missing but this would give the survivors standing in their own home courts not they don't have to come to Mordor here to file the suit and then it
would give the attorneys general of the various states standing if if Todd Blanch or the next attorney general doesn't cooperate and it would give
members of Congress standing. Uh, so I'm real interested in getting this one done before January 3rd at noon when I'm no
longer a member of Congress. Maybe I should have also given former members of Congress standing, but it'll be up to the other members of Congress to to use
this lever into. You see, this is an aspect of the law and litigation. I'm not an attorney, but um I do know about
this. You have to have it's called either a private right of action or standing or cause. You have to be able
either statutoily it has to be granted to you or you have to show you've been harmed in some way in order to get standing. And it's been hard to do that. There is a case that's going forward
where one judge did grant standing and the attorney general is right now contesting the judge's ruling where he's been compelled to release some of the
files unredacted by the judge. >> All right guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show which is Superpower. People are always talking
about getting healthier, making New Year's resolutions or plans for the summer to get in shape. If you really want to do something for your health, check out Superpower. This is the future
of how people are understanding their health. What Superpower does is they send a licensed professional to your home or you can visit a nearby lab if you prefer. It's one simple blood draw
that gives you over 100 biioarkers, which is way more than you typically get. And then their app includes detailed information on your heart, liver, thyroid, hormones, metabolism,
vitamin and mineral levels, even environmental toxins. So, from disease prevention to treating that annoying brain fog or simply optimizing your gym game, Superpower is the most
comprehensive and advanced system out there. They're going to give you recommendations based on your actual body that will benefit you the most. And because one test builds on another,
you're going to get a picture over time of how your results are actually going, unlocking even more information about your body and personally tailing your supplements, your gym game, your diet to
what your body needs. It's really pretty incredible. And Superpower used to cost around $499, but now it's just $199 for the full
experience. Superpower believes every human has a 100year potential, and they're here to help you get there. So go check it out now. Your blueprint is
activated with Superpower. Not only did Superpower reduce the price to $199, but for a limited time, our listeners can get an additional $20 off if they use
the promo code problem. Just go to superpower.com and remember to use that promo code problem at checkout for an additional $20 off your membership. All
right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, sometimes um the just the reaction to bills like this can tell you so much of what you need to know or just the
reaction of federal judges like man why the effort when this administration ran on transparency on this issue. You know, speaking of um running on this issue, uh
I I would say that um one of the things that I'm optimistic about in the future is that I I do think that we are for all the flaws of a democratic system, we are
coming back into another presidential election year. And so many of these issues that you're talking about here, despite the smear campaigns that may
have been effective with some boomers and certainly, if anything, just had the opposite effect with everybody younger than that. But the actual issues that you've gotten in a fight over, say like
not fighting other stupid wars, not having reckless fiscal policy that drives us has driven us up to $40 trillion in debt, transparency on the
Epstein issues. These are overwhelmingly popular with super majorities of the American people. And you know, Miriam Adlesen has a lot of
money. Um, but I mean she can pump say $30 million or or Miam and other Israel, you know, lobby uh uh organizations can
pop uh can pump 30 plus million dollars into a little district in rural Kentucky. Can it be really tough to pump that into a thousand different districts
um all across the country? In fact, I'd say that's impossible. Fox News could have a blockout of a congressional primary. It's going to be really impossible in the age of the podcast for
Fox News to block out a presidential candidate. So, like if we could get a presidential candidate who was like for transparency, who was a person with some integrity, who had some honesty, who
wasn't a crazy socialist and actually believed in Americanism and free markets, I just got to say, man, I think that could really take off and and really like change the course of this
country. >> Do you know anyone? Do you know anyone? >> Cuz I got a guy in my Wait, stop it. No, no, no, no, no. Everyone else can do this to me, but not you. The most suited
[laughter] guy in the country to do this. Listen, man. I'm just gonna say a lot of people are uh excited about the prospect of you, maybe a Tucker Carlson, maybe some combination. Maybe some stuff
comes together over these next uh couple years. We really try to save this country. Just saying. Just a thought. Throwing it out there to close the show. >> Look, I think I think the ground terrain
has to change somewhat. I found myself shooting uphill uh because the money was aligned against me, the administration was aligned against me and and you know three to one
the boomers were aligned against me because they don't have alternate news sources. But I think um I think things are changing. I think there's a reason
to be optimistic. Not today, not in these midterms, not with these clowns I serve with, but uh with very few exceptions, but in the future. Um by the
way, let me talk about the before we leave Epstein Files Transparency Act two, the prospect of getting it passed. So, you know, we I'm not going to lie,
we caught lightning in a bottle to get the first one passed. We we had the nation's attention. We organized the biggest press conferences ever in the
history of Washington DC in the last, you know, two decades here on the steps of the Capitol with the survivors. It's going to be hard to recreate that, but
there is the pressure of an upcoming election and people start behaving a little more rashly as far as what their constituents want in close proximity to
an election. So, we've got that going for us. We've also got some congressmen who've announced they're not coming back. We've got some congressmen who will find out in November that they're
not coming back. uh that so the prospects for getting uh people who are unafraid or have nothing to lose have
gone up as well. Um so the here's the math. We need every Democrat just like in the first uh transparency act and I
anticipate we can get all of them. Uh almost 50 have already signed by now in less than 48 hours. and we need myself and and three other
Republicans and um Nancy Mace is already on board. So really what I need is two other
Republicans. And here's what happens when you get the other two Republicans. Every other Republican once forced to vote on it will vote for this. Okay, that's what we
saw in the first one. They they said it was the worst legislation in the history of the world, right? if you listen to Mike Johnson and then he turned around
and voted for it. Uh because it's only when you call the question and then they have to put up or shut up and which side
do you want to be on? Particularly if we could get this done before the election. This would be this would be another unanimous vote in the House and the
Senate. And if we don't get it done before the election, we've got more people who are lame ducks who might be compelled after November. And if we
don't do that, I'm not saying I want us to be in the minority, but I I can guarantee you the Democrats are going to put this on the floor if they take the
majority and then the Republicans are going to have to vote on it. And they're they're not going to vote against it. they would be able to get to the president, I believe, a veto proof
majority. And by the way, this is this is another funny thing. U when we did the first Epstein Files Transparency Act,
I did the discharge petition and on the resolution that took the language from a bill that we decided Roana would lead
that would and inserted it into somebody else's bill. Like this is a triple sacow type legislative move that I did that most of my colleagues still don't even
understand. But at the end of the day, what the speaker did once I got the requisite votes to force a vote on my thing is he
just called up Roana's bill, which was the bill we wrote together, but we decided to put my name on two things and his name on one. You
if you go back and look at history, all these Republicans voted for a Roana bill. the ones that say, "Oh my gosh, Roana is a communist. He's working with this guy. I can't believe he would have
anything to do with Roana." They all voted for Roana's bill. It's kind of fun to think about. Um so anyways, it's a
it's a real possibility that we can get this done, but I do need two Republicans. And so that's what it's in addition to Nancy Mace, um that's what
it's going to come down to. And Marjorie Taylor Green's no longer here. So we need two that weren't with us the first time. But it should be easier for them. They've already voted for it once.
Particularly for those who aren't coming back. I you cannot imagine how scared my colleagues are of Donald Trump. What they will say about him behind his back.
>> They will grumble. They will cuss. They are pissed off. And they will do nothing to cross him or or to even do something
that he 10% doesn't like because they're terrified of him. U >> Yep. That's right. >> But at the end of the day, there's safety and numbers. Once we get to the
requisite votes, right, you can be forgiven for signing the discharge petition because even Mike Johnson's going to vote for the bill most likely.
>> Right. Right. No, and I mean, you're right. They are a lot of them are intimidated by Trump. But their cowardice just kind of um accentuates uh
uh the courage that people like you and Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Boowbert and and Roano who deserves a lot of credit for all of this too. Uh Congressman Massie, thank you so much
for taking the time. I hope you get the chance to do this again soon. Good luck. Uh thank you for fighting the good fight and uh we look forward to your uh your
your release party where we'll all be celebrating your your freedom again soon. >> I'm like an inmate putting X the on the door here. The the people who take the
next office are going to have to paint over the X's in this office because I'm counting down the hours to January 3rd at noon. But there's also 34 legislative
days between now and then, and I don't want to waste any of them. Today, I'll be introducing the flock off bill, and I'll have something for everybody every
week that I'm in session. >> I love that. Uh we Well, I I meant to talk flock cams with you, but the time caught up. Next time, definitely. Absolutely. Thank you everyone for
listening. Thanks again to the great uh Congressman Thomas Massie, and we will catch you guys next time. Peace. Heat. Heat. [music]

Comments

You have to be logged in. A comment stays up until three different people flag it. Then it comes down. Nobody on our side reads the queue.