Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/17/25: Saagar Debates Michael Tracey On Epstein Israel Connections

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Saagar debates Tracey on Epstein and Israel.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Get ready for a celebration of play like no other at the all-new LEGO Summer of Play event at LEGOLAND Discovery Center Toronto, now through August 3rd. I'm master model builder Noel inviting you to discover your play mode with awesome build activities, experiences, and even some fresh new dance moves. Enjoy the ultimate indoor LEGO playground with rides, a 4D theater, and millions of Lego bricks at Legoland Discovery Center. Build the best day ever with your family by getting tickets online now at legolanddiscoverycenter.com slash Toronto.

Ugh, come on, why is this taking so long? This thing is ancient. Still using yesterday's tech? Upgrade to the ThinkPad X1 Carbon, ultra light, ultra powerful and built for serious productivity with Intel Core Ultra processors, blazing speed and AI powered performance that keeps up with your business, not the other way around. Whoa, this thing moves.

Stop hitting snooze on new tech. Win the tech search at Lenovo.com. Unlock AI experiences with the ThinkPad X1 Carbon powered by Intel Core Ultra processors so you can work, create and boost productivity all on one device. Join iHeartRadio and Sarah Spayne in celebrating the one-year anniversary of iHeart Women's Sports. With powerful interviews and insider analysis, our shows have connected fans with the heart of women's sports.

In just one year, the network has launched 15 shows and built a community united by passion. Podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports. Thank you for supporting iHeart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors, Elf Beauty, Capital One, and Novartis. Just open the free iHeart app and search iHeart Women's Sports to listen now.

Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. ["Breaking Points"] Joining us now for a little friendly Epstein debate, friend of the show, Michael Tracy, independent journalist, and you can check him out over at mtracy.net. Great to see you, sir.

Always a pleasure. Yeah. Good to see you, Michael. Absolutely. So I said this before, but I'm, even though, like everybody knows I'm more on the soccer side on this, but I'm gonna try my best to play the role as neutral moderator so that we can have a one-on-one

and you're not getting just like teamed up on by both of us on this whole thing. But you recently wrote an article that takes apart some of what you describe as the Epstein mythology. This is for a compact mag. We can put this up on the screen. The headline here is the idiocy of the Epstein mythology.

And you've been very vocal on Twitter Now X as well in taking apart what you see as some of the more tenuous theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So before we dive in, I just I was sort of level set with you, Michael, of like, what do you think is going on with Trump right now? Like, why is he acting the way that he is around Jeffrey Epstein and, you know, ran on releasing the files? And now he's not going to release the files and there are no files.

And now, yes, there are files, but they were written by Obama and and screw you and I don't even want you to be a supporter if you believe any of this nonsense. What is your assessment of like what is actually happening here? Well there's no doubt that the Trump administration hasn't roiled itself in a PR fiasco of its own making I would argue. You know I slightly tongue-in-cheek say at the end of that article that I do think that there is a genuine trafficking conspiracy for people to get upset about. It's that so many people in the Trump orbit trafficked in nonsense for the past several

years, namely, Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, et cetera, when they spent their time tantalizing their followers with these teases about how there was going to be some explosive revelation once the second Trump administration got in power and vanquished the deep state. And by natural extension of that, of course, the quote unquote Epstein files would be released because it was the satanic, demonic Democrats who were, for some reason, covering up all the damning information to protect their donors and friends and allies because Democrats in this Cash Patel Dan Bongino, you know Rumble universe imagination are perpetually covering for pedophilic sex trafficking networks and

Trump was occasionally asked about this when he would go around on these ass kissing podcasts during the 2024 campaign and If you'll if you go back and look at what he said, he would often be a little bit equivocal or noncommittal. He would say, yeah, sure, maybe we'll look into releasing the Epstein files. But it wasn't as if Trump went around campaigning on this issue of his own volition. It's just that part of the 2024 Republican campaign strategy, which I thought was very clever and effective, was to tailor a message to audiences who consume this kind of media, meaning the Joe Rogan Network and related podcasts that I would argue have conspiracism as a sort of habit of mind or kind of soft ideology. Not that they're wrong, but every conspiracy theory

that they might believe in, but that's just sort of how they process information. It's like their epistemology. So these Republican campaigners had to tailor a message to these people and Trump just kind of played along with it. And it was always, I think, going to blow up in their faces had to tailor a message to these people and Trump just kind of played along with it and it was always I think going to blow up in their faces once the rubber hit the road and they were pressed to actually make good on these promises but Trump himself really evaded the issue. Let me just to be really clear what your position is and I'll get Sagar to respond.

Do you believe there's no there there with regard to young girls being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to other powerful people, for example, Bill Clinton, potentially Donald Trump, potentially Bill Gates and others. You think there's no there there with regard to those questions. And do you also believe there's no there there

with regard to potential intel connections, whether it's CIA or Mossad. Yeah, so let me try to spell this out pretty carefully. I try to differentiate between what I've been referring to as Epstein mythology versus the actual factual record when it comes to Epstein. In the realm of mythology, there exists this belief, and correct me if you guys think I'm wrong, there exists this widespread belief that a pedophilic sex trafficking ring has been systematically covered up and that Jeffrey Epstein orchestrated this pedophilic sex trafficking ring by trafficking minors to prominent third party individuals and then conducted a blackmail operation

to coerce those individuals into silence or complicity or something. And the idea was that previously the Biden administration was maliciously covering up this information, again, to protect the likes of Bill Clinton or Bill Gates, et cetera. But now the ideas, shockingly, to the MAGA base or the MAGA social media influencers anyway,

which I'm not sure is totally synonymous with the base, but that's sort of another issue. Now to their absolute shock, Donald Trump is apparently engaging in this very same cover-up. I would argue that the factual predicate for that assumption, which I think you guys will agree is extremely widespread. That's why people were so incensed about this issue. The factual predicate for that is not well established at all or not nearly as established

as you would think given the confidence with people with which people assert the existence of that thing that they're so certain exists. Okay, all right. Let's go ahead and get cyber in and then we'll come back and can dig more specifically into it. Well, Michael, first of all I would point out that part of the reason that the quote-unquote factual predicate doesn't exist for what you're talking about is actually in existence in my opinion that would if you look at the open source information for how so many of these prominent individuals dealt with Epstein, and then eventually the non-prosecution agreement that was eventually signed by Alex Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein, and eventually

of course the Palm Beach County PD only bringing a case against him for solicitation of prostitution actually proves that part of the reason why a lot of this stuff doesn't exist in the quote unquote factual predicate and or DOJ documents is part of the reason why so much of this does not exist in court basis, et cetera. If you actually look at the information, I mean, I think Leslie Wexner is perhaps the best example for proving what you were talking about,

where we have a actual high prominent individual in the year 1991, one of the only billionaires here in the United States of America, the richest man in Ohio, who gives power of attorney to Jeffrey Epstein over his entire estate, transfers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate over to him, to which Epstein then uses those properties,

as you just pointed out, in the factual predicate, as exist and points out in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, which yes, is only about human trafficking between young women and Epstein himself, as in he is the sole person who is victimizing these women, that was on Wexner-related properties. That's a pretty direct example of where nobody, including Wexner himself, has ever been able to give an example of how exactly you had this extraordinary situation of signing over power of attorney. And in fact, Vicki Ward, James Stewart, the biographers who looked into this story say that many

of the people around Wexner believed that it was a result of a blackmail operation. It's not that difficult to imagine that the founder of Victoria's Secret, which entails selling lingerie to teenage girls and surrounding yourselves with beautiful models and all of this, would be involved in some pretty sketchy behavior with a known pedophile of Jeffrey Epstein.

So I think that's a pretty clear example, tracing all the way back from 1991, showing the ability to use and coerce behavior, perhaps blackmail and others, to enrich himself and also, I mean we can get into the intelligence case now in the future, but exactly why so many people I think rightfully can point at an example like that and say it's very clear if you look at that pattern that there is smoke there. Now I agree, this has not yet been proven,

but I would actually argue that the reason that it has not been proven is specifically to cover up the very type of behavior. is specifically to cover up the very type of behavior. Well, that some people around Wexner may have believed, as you put it, that there was some potential explanation for Epstein's inheritance of this wealth that had to do with blackmail is not a proven factual predicate for anything.

Well, nobody's saying that, but by that point, we're not supposed to take any reporting. At the end of the day, you have a multi-billionaire who signs over power of attorney for his entire estate and hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate, and it's because he thought he was a money genius, that does not happen. Sure, I acknowledge that there are aspects to this story that are non-mythological in the sense that they really do raise questions about the mystery surrounding how he guarded his

wealth and so forth. But let me give one example that I don't think has adequately penetrated the popular consciousness nor has it been adequately covered on alternative media, maybe including this very show. Virginia Gouffre, who I think you'll agree if you've studied this case, which I assume that you have, is the central figure who spawned the widespread belief that there had to have been this pedophilic sex trafficking network

because in late 2014, she issued a court filing in which she alleged that she had been sex trafficked to a myriad of prominent third party individuals like Prince Andrew, like the former majority leader of the United States Senate, George Mitchell, like the former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and other people. And then she also made a categorical claim that she had been trafficked to unnamed prime ministers and other people of prominence around the world. That's what really spawned it.

And I just don't think it's disputable that Virginia Gouffre was a serial fabulist. I know people don't want to hear that. I know whenever I've commented on this subject anywhere on the internet, 95% of the comments sections are against me and they think that I'm covering up for pedophiles or something as though I love pedophilia and that's why I'm making this argument.

That's not the case. Virginia Gouffre, per the factual record, was a serial fabulist. I'm sure you know, Sager, that she accused Alan Dershowitz, having been one of the third party individuals to whom she was trafficked. She made this accusation adamantly under the cover of the litigation privilege for nearly a decade. decade. Then by 2022, because Dershowitz actually had the resources and the motivation to pursue this charge against him or to dispute it to the point of a settlement, she then had to

retract and recant this signature claim that she had been making for 10 years, almost, that very much animated the media coverage around this issue. She withdrew it. She totally obliterated her own credibility. And then sure enough, in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial of 2021, she was not even called as a witness by the prosecution because she would have been a nightmare under cross-examination because so many of the things,

the most salacious claims that she made around this story just do not stand up to basic scrutiny. You can even find examples of her signing on to like literal hoaxes in terms of these creeps who came out the woodwork claiming that they had the video footage of illicit sexual activity in Epstein's properties. And then Gouffre's own attorney, David Boyce, who by the way, made a killing on this whole issue. That's another thing we could get into how basically the Epstein matter has subsidized

the South Florida bar and all these feeding frenzy lawyers who have made a killing. Well I would argue the money went the other way Michael, but yeah, continue. Yeah, it goes both ways, but the defense attorneys concocted a whole strategy whereby they would extract enormous payouts for themselves. Well, okay, Virginia Gouffre is one victim. She's a very troubled individual. Last point. Virginia Gouffre made millions of dollars. She had a life of luxury as a result of her deciding to become this professional victim. That was her full-time job. She launched

this scam NGO. I thought the right was supposed to be skeptical of NGO networks. What is Virginia Gouffre doing right now, Michael? Do you know how it ended up for her? She's deceased. Yeah, that's right. She's deceased. Yeah, because her life ended tragically. Because she was a very troubled, unstable, She was a troubled individual.

and unreliable person. And look, it's not deniable she's pictured there with Prince Andrew, but to paint it only as a Virginia Gouffre is one of the only people that is saying this, is just not accurate. Part of the reason why. She wasn't integral to the story? She was absolutely integral to the coverage and largely it was Part of the reason why. She wasn't integral to the story? He was absolutely integral to the coverage

and largely it was because of the photo, which you're not gonna deny, I hope, of her picture with Prince Andrew, which is literally what got him removed from his public duties as a, from his public duties as a member of the British royal family. Clearly they believe, at least in some part,

that Prince Andrew was involved in some pretty sketchy behavior there was a relationship with Epstein. But even, let's step back further. Yeah, the royal family was coerced through the tsunami of horrible PR that they were subject to. What do you mean horrible PR?

Why is this guy hanging out with a convicted sex offender and in this case with a 17 year old girl with his arm around her? That's not acceptable behavior, not just for a British royal family, but for anybody. He wasn't a convicted sex offender at the time that the photo was reportedly taken.

You're right, he's routine to be hanging out with 17-year-old women and to take photos with them. Was he a convicted sex offender at the time that the photo was reportedly taken? I'd have to check the date on what it is. He wasn't, it was taken purportedly in 2001. He was not a convicted sex offender at that time. So you're saying then in that case

that Prince Andrew, the member of the British Royal Family, did not have access to the global elite in which people like Donald Trump could say on the record in 2002 before Jeffrey Epstein is convicted as a sex offender in which he can say, Jeffrey, he likes him young, in which is an open secret, literally among the jet set class,

that this type of behavior is acceptable to Harvey Weinstein and to everybody else. This is open out from Vanity Fair reporting from quote, from Donald Trump himself. That's our current president. But beyond that, it is an open secret. And Donald Trump said that Jeffrey Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein is a great guy

and he tends to like the company of young women or something like that. Yeah, he says he likes them young. So does that prove that Donald Trump is a sex offender? No, I didn't say that he proves he's a sex offender. What I'm saying is that it's open knowledge that Epstein routinely is seen and is pictured with young women at that time. By the way, and let's continue this, and this is why-

True, so was Donald Trump. Pegging this entirely on Virginia Gouffre, again, is not accurate, and I think what it does- Largely, I mean, she's the one who- No, it is not, because again again the photo of her with Prince Andrews watch any of these Netflix documentaries HBO it's always Virginia Gouffre front and center they never ever qualify any of their coverage by noting that she has a proven demonstrable record of serial fabulism okay would you concede that

she's a serial fabulist I would concede that she was a troubled individual who clearly at this point, from the way that her attorneys and others have acknowledged that she did make up some fact. And I do think that that reflects. So she made up her most grandiose claims. I'm not relying all of this on Virginia Gouffray. That's my point. I have a much broader, I have a much broader amount

of evidence to point, and this is also where I think it kind of gets at. So you don't think conceding that the most high profile accuser who was integral in the claim of a sex trafficking ring insofar as her claim was that she was sex trafficked to prominent third party individuals. I'm not contesting that Epstein himself was a sexual predator.

I mean, he's on the record saying that he rejects that there should be any kind of taboo against, you know, post pubescent women of any age or girls of any age being accessible to men for impregnation. I mean, he had a bizarre and creepy and depraved beliefs around sexual relations with minors. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting this third party sex trafficking ring that forms the basis of why people are so outraged now about something purportedly being covered up

and all these elites getting away with things. Get ready for a celebration of play like no other at the all new LEGO Summer of Play event at LEGOLAND Discovery Center Toronto, now through August 3rd. I'm master model builder Noel inviting you to discover your play mode with awesome build activities, experiences, and even some fresh new dance moves. Enjoy the ultimate indoor LEGO playground with rides, a 4-day theatre, and millions of LEGO bricks at LEGOLAND Discovery Center. Build the best day ever with your family by getting tickets online now

at legolanddiscoverycenter.com slash Toronto. So what happened at Chappaquiddick? Well, it really depends on who you talk to. There are many versions of what happened in 1969 when a young Ted Kennedy drove a car into a pond. And left a woman behind to drown. There's a famous headline, I think, in the New York Daily News.

It's, Teddy escapes, blonde drowns. And in a strange way, right, that sort of tells you. The story really became about Ted's political future, Ted's political hopes. Will Ted become president? Chappaquiddick is a story of a tragic death and how the Kennedy machine took control. And he's not the only Kennedy to survive a scandal.

The Kennedys have lived through disgrace, affairs, violence, you name it. So is there a curse? Every week we go behind the headlines and beyond the drama of America's royal family. Listen to United States of Kennedy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

wherever you get your podcasts. American history is full of wise people. Well women said something like no 99.99% of war is diarrhea and 1% is glory. Those founding fathers were gossipy AF and they love to cut each other down. I'm Bob Crawford, host of American history Hotline, the show where you send us your questions about American history and I find the answers, including the nuggets of wisdom our history has to offer. Hamilton pauses and then he says, the greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar. And Jefferson writes in his diary, this proves that Hamilton is for a dictator based on corruption.

My favorite line was what Neil Armstrong said, it would have been harder to fake it than to do it. Listen to American history hotline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let me ask you a question about this, Michael. How do you explain the deal he was able to cut down in Florida with Alex Acosta, who goes on to be Trump's labor secretary,

who was US attorney at the time, which led to him serving, I believe, 13 minutes in a county jail where the jail cell was open, where he was able to go to his office for 12 hours a day. Afterwards, he's released. There's significant reporting that indicates even after he was supposed to be on home confinement, he's flying around, he's doing what he wants to do.

That deal was so sort of outlandish that actually a judge came in and said, you violated the rights of victims. This deal was actually technically illegal. And not only did it provide for a very cushy deal and very low level charge, ultimately for Jeffrey Epstein, it also indicated that none of his potential co-conspirators could be charged whatsoever.

So how do you explain this person getting such an incredibly cushy deal at that point and a deal again that allows any even theoretical co-conspirators off the hook which is it's so extraordinary even Galeen Maxwell now is appealing to the Supreme Court saying hey I should have been part of that deal what am I in prison for since you the government said no co-conspirators could ever be in you know indicted or found guilty of anything. I'm just not sure why people think it's such a profound mystery that a wealthy individual,

whatever the source of his wealth, and I agree that if possible, a more forensic audit should be done of how he acquired his wealth. But obviously he had the means to hire a dream team of lawyers to come and negotiate with the government on his behalf. He brought in Alan Dershowitz, who had just participated in securing an acquittal for

O.J. Simpson. He brought in Ken Starr to make a federalism argument to federal prosecutors, arguing that the offenses for which Epstein was accused were fundamentally state-level crimes and did not enter the purview of federal prosecutors on that ground because the federal prosecutors couldn't establish that there was trafficking across state lines or some other element that would place the crime in their purview. Were these technical arguments? Sure.

But if you want to make this a scandal about wealthy people having access to powerful lawyers who can maybe get them a more lenient non-prosecution agreement than the average person would have access to, I'd be all on board with that. But it seems that people just immediately launch into the explanation that he must have been some kind of intelligence asset or agent. And just to touch on that for a moment, you know, Sagar, I'm not trying to personally attack you on this. No, it's fine. You can.

I happen to see, I saw a clip going around last week of you on Tucker's show in which you asserted that- Which I corrected, by the way. I corrected that quote. Okay, maybe you corrected it, but I'm just like, but a lot of people have repeated this quote that derives from a 2019 Vicki Ward article in which she's quoting or she's attributing this quote from Alex Acosta from several years before 2019 when he's in a meeting with Trump transition officials.

And according to Vicki Ward, a former Trump, senior Trump administration official, which sounds a lot like Steve Bannon's blowing smoke. We don't know that with 100% certainty. By the way, why is Steve Bannon sitting on 16 hours of raw uncut Epstein footage? We're all with you there. We're all with you there. Okay. Okay. And why was he strategizing with Epstein about how he could present himself for a media interview with 60 Minutes.

But anyway, we'll leave that aside for the moment. But that quote was a sense, it's like the definition of hearsay, and it got characterized as an on-record, like declaratory statement from Acosta of him just asserting that he had been warned that Epstein belonged to intelligence pursuant to the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and therefore he should back off. That's not what that quote signified. And actually several years later, post 2018 when the Miami Herald series breathed new life into the story, harnessing the power of Me Too, which by the way, I thought the right

was mostly skeptical of. Instead on this issue and in like select circumstances, we hear the right saying believe women, we have to honor all survivors, we can't use any critical scrutiny of their claims. But after the Me Too energy bolstered this story, that's not true. The DOJ, the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility conducted a review of the 2007 20082008 non-prosecution agreement, and Alex Acosta did directly address this claim that he had once potentially asserted that Epstein belonged to intelligence, and that's why a supposedly more lenient deal was given.

And Alex Acosta did deny it on the record. Now, in terms of the leniency of that deal, listen to what Dershowitz has to say. I'm not saying I agree with Alan Dershowitz on everything. In fact, I strongly disagree with him on the issue of Israel. It's odd to me that every critic of Israel now has to feel that they have to be wedded to this particular issue because their criticism of Israel is bolstered by the idea that the reason that Israel is so widely supported among power structures is because there's a pervasive sexual blackmail network. that the reason that Israel is so widely supported among power structures is because there's a

pervasive sexual blackmail network. I think that kind of makes critics of Israel look rather stupid. But Dershowitz says that Epstein fired him and refused to pay his legal fees because Epstein felt that he did not get a lenient deal. He felt that the prostitution charges, state-level prostitution charges in Florida that he was required to plead guilty to were actually overly onerous and he should not have had to be subject to any kind of state control at all. So there was dispute over whether they were actually... Let me respond.

...if it was actually legal. Michael, the idea that this was because of MeToo is complete bullshit. The reason why... It wasn't bolstered by it? The cultural energy of MeToo didn't empower this. The US District Court judge ruled that the non prosecution agreement violated the rights of the victims who were not informed of the non prosecution agreement Which you're portraying as standard operating procedure for some sort of rich person

That is just absolutely not Miami Herald series came out I agree it came out in 2018 But it was a 12 year period in which the victims themselves were not informed of the situation, sued under their rights under the, I believe it's like the crime victims' rights. I don't exactly remember. I mean, Julie Brown and Tina Brown, who have covered this issue very closely, attribute the renewed interest to me too.

What I'm saying is that the district court judge is the person who overturned the NPA, which is the reason why, now perhaps some of the motivations of perhaps coming back for your rights, it is indisputable that the rights of the victims were violated under that non-prosecution agreement. Number one, as you just pointed out in that OPR review, they said that Acosta himself exercised, what, poor judgment whenever he came to that.

Now, let's address the- Sure, but he denied the intelligence asset claim, right? Yeah, but let's address that intelligence. First of all, the transcript of that has never been made public, and the way that it was phrased specifically around OPR and when they asked him about intelligence, when he said, absolutely not,

I did not have information that he was an intelligence asset. The way that that question, as you and I know, asked, is pretty damn specific. Now let's talk about Israel as well. No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It was much more, it was much more, it was much more, did you look at the footnote?

Yes I did, I looked at both the footnote where he said I was allowed to address it in a classified setting. He said absolutely not when asked specifically whether he belonged to intelligence. He says, he was asked whether he had knowledge of Epstein being a quote, intelligence asset. Yes, but my-

Acosta stated to OPR that quote, the answer is no. I'm not sure how much more direct he could have been. The answer is, look, I mean, I'm trying to be very specific here. I believe that the way that that question is asked in the transcript and the circumstance are pretty important. I got it right in front of me. No, but that's my point though,

is that even if you're quote, he belonged to intelligence and I was told to leave it alone, is not direct knowledge. These are classic non-denial denials. And in his 2019 press conference, he did not actually address it whenever he was asked on the record publicly. It's only in his OPR review that he later on

comes back to it. I don't think you're gonna deny in 2019 that he did not leave the door open to the fact that that report could have had some accuracy. He said something along the lines of, I wouldn't believe everything you read, but it was a non-denial denial. But at the time of that non-prosecution agreement

that you're talking about, Jeffrey Epstein, by verified report, is in Israel, basically brought all of his assets over there, returns from Israel to Palm Beach in April of 2008. So that's the first, in my opinion, sketchy connection for why he's exactly granted this special status in Israel whenever he's fighting a pedophile prosecution in the United States of America. But let's just continue down that fact,

and this is the part that I just don't understand. For somebody who generally looks for links, why do you have the former Israeli Prime Minister, Eud Barak, flying on his plane multiple times, staying at his house for months on end, pictured when there were women there, holding a scarf in front of his face to hide his identity from the tabloids.

Why is it that, what is it, JP Morgan in 2011 has to rely on Epstein to broker a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu? Why is it that Aoud Olmer and Shimon Peres are both linked to Jeffrey Epstein? Aoud Barak was asked, how did you meet Jeffrey Epstein? I did it via Shimon Peres. Aoud Olmer is named specifically by the US Virgin Islands

as an Epstein associate. I mean, if we take that and then combine it here with Leslie Wexner, the fact that Jeffrey Epstein is on board the Wexner Foundation and then pays Aude Barack $2.3 million to complete two reports, one of which he never finished, I can continue back further. Here we have Jeffrey Epstein involved

in multiple sketchy arms transactions from the 1980s. I mean, this is where I genuinely wonder if you're just trying to be a contrarian. Do you accept it as a fact that Steven Hoffenberg, Douglas Lees, and Adnan Khashoggi, Robert Maxwell, who by the way is a known Mossad agent, did not have connections with Jeffrey Epstein in which it looks like with a source of his wealth was used as cutouts for use by the

US intelligence, or the US and Israeli intelligence community. The four individuals who I just named are known and linked to multiple sketchy arms deals from the 1980s. Khashoggi, Robert Maxwell, Douglas Lees, Stephen Hoffenberg. They've given on the record statements about their relationship with Epstein. At one point, Epstein is flying on a private jet with Douglas Lees in the 1980s when he's just 28 years old. I mean, I don't know how you can't look at that,

specifically hear about the money, even ignore the sex trafficking, and not saying that he did not have connections here to intelligence, or at the very least, for cutouts and use as an intelligence asset in the past. I genuinely do not know how you cannot look at that. And specifically where the source of his wealth is complete bullshit.

He starts a firm in 1988, J. Epstein and Associates, where he says, I only take on people with a billion dollars. There are only 140, 150 people in the country, or in the world at that time, who have a billion dollars under management He's never been a registered money manager. He has no proven tax record He called himself a court high-level bounty hunter when he forms an international assets group in what way does this not look suspicious? For everything that I have just laid out there in the highest

Around this issue, but you want people to come out and say fact. Yeah, he was Mossad I totally get why the Israeli government, I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here.

I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here.

I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean I don't know what we're doing here. I mean's ridiculous. So now we're gonna go into a detour into the Warren Commission. No, but what I'm saying is- I mean, this is the problem with discussing this issue. Nobody can stay wedded to one coherent train of thought. That's a factual predicate.

It's good that you conceded that the primary Epstein accuser is a serial fabulous. Oh my goodness. That's a positive- Stop on Virginia Gouffre. By the way, by the way, there are two other individuals who have named- Hold on, can I respond now? No, who have named Prince Andrew, Johanna Schoenberg, and Caroline, I need to her name, one second, Caroline Peete, who's been named here in an affidavit. How much can you throw out at once?

Let me go ahead and get Michael in. But that's the case! In particular, you know, Sager laid out the connections with what, four different Israeli Prime Ministers. Four Israeli Prime Ministers. You know, how do you, how do you assimilate that information? What's your response to that? Sure, first of all, I have to just address the idea that I'm just being arbitrarily contrarian.

I can't tell you how many issues I've received that accusation on over the years, whether it was the Trump-Russia story, which contained conspiratorial elements where I was accused of being a contrarian, whether it was the 2020 George Floyd riots, which I went around and critically covered the poor media coverage of, I was widely denounced for being a contrarian. I'll give you all the evidence, whether it was the war in Ukraine. This just happens to be an issue where people, I guess more on the right now think I'm being a contrarian. And so they're particularly in range. I shouldn't have impugned you. I should not have impugned your motives, but go ahead.

Okay. Well, so I just don't believe it's not contrarianism to critically cover how media narratives congeal in the absence of what I think to be a reliable, factual basis. And how people believe stuff. All right, so why is F.C. linked up with all these Israeli prime makers? I mean, you have Dave Smith, who I think you guys have had on to discuss this, or you've had on as a regular guest, who was at the Talking Points conference and accused Donald Trump of covering up a child sex trafficking or child raping. I mean, Sager, do you think that that was a credible statement? I simply don't. I mean, Sager, do you think that that was a credible

statement? I simply don't. I mean, again, I would not. So let me let me address the Israeli Israeli officials. OK, so yes, it's not disputed that Ehud Barak, for instance, was a longtime associate of Epstein. They engaged in some business deals together. They even Ehud Barak, amazingly enough, was actually present when Epstein. They engaged in some business deals together. They even, Ehud Barak, amazingly enough, was actually present when Epstein was on a media strategizing session with Steve Bannon where they were planning how he could rehabilitate his image in the wake of the 2018 Miami Herald series. And Bannon was having to educate Epstein about how Me Too had changed

cultural attitudes around this stuff. So you couldn't just be as obstinate as maybe you were able to be before in the past in rejecting some of these charges. So Steve Bannon was actually like- You couldn't just out-nounce me or the women, basically. Yeah. Yeah. You had to be more sensitive.

So Steve Bannon conducted the 16 hours of preparatory interviews with Epstein to kind of tell him how he would be questioned in the context of the 60 minutes interview or something. On the Israel connection, yes, Ehud Barak was a longtime associate of Epstein. Epstein had longtime associations with an astonishing array of people. I'm not doubting that. He was a consummate bullshitter. He had alliances with, as we know, everybody from Bill Gates to Donald Trump to Bill Clinton over the years.

So does this surprise me that some of those people included the Israeli government? No. Or the Saudi arms deal stuff that he was involved in in the 1980s? No. I'm not surprised about any of that. And I'm also allowing for the possibility as I wrote in that compact article that over the course of his bizarre international jet setting perhaps he did come into contact with somebody who was associated with the Israeli security services. Ehud Barak himself would have been the head of Mossad when he was prime minister so is it inconceivable? He was also the head of military intelligence.

Sure, so is it inconceivable that over the course of their meetings, Ehud Barak obtained some piece of information that maybe he passed along to somebody? No, that's not inconceivable at all. I just don't see it as dispositive or as like all encompassingly explanatory of Epstein supposedly getting away with this child sex trafficking ring whose existence I don't regard as having been anywhere near established. You know, in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, interestingly, Maureen Comey was the prosecutor who was just fired yesterday.

And she then tried to prosecute, you know, P. Diddy Combs, et cetera, under like similar auspices of like, you know, asserting a sex trafficking ring, but like weirdly narrowing the claimed contours of the sex trafficking to two people or one person. So people hear trafficking and they think it must be the sprawling multi-layered ring

when in reality, the grounds on which Maxwell was convicted was a sex trafficking, quote unquote, conspiracy that literally consisted of two people, according to the government and according to what the four purported victims in that trial even claimed. Oh, and by the way, those victims in that trial just received multimillion dollar payouts from the Epstein estate and from JP Morgan. And there was a similar Deutsche Bank settlement that came out whereby they could confidentially and non-adversarily have their claims adjudicated by a mediator. So if you had any tangential connection to Epstein, or if I had any tangential connection

to Epstein, of course, I would work with my lawyers who are going to get a cut to come up with a story that would entail me to millions of dollars. Just like Virginia Gouffre did to become a multimillionaire where she could purchase luxurious ocean-sized spaces. You're so focused on Virginia Gouffre. I literally just told you. There is another, I have her name here in my notes. I've got it right here.

Were her claims ever adjudicated in a criminal setting? Because that's where the highest evidentiary standards are placed. Johanna Stover, in documents, relates to the defamation suit accused Prince Andrew of inappropriate sexual contact while posing for a photo at the Epstein mansion suggesting that she was trafficked there. That's in a sworn affidavit in the very defamation case

that you're talking about. Caroline B., another anonymous individual. But listen, I mean, this is my thing. Did you read the Deutsche Bank? Well, what did they call for mean, this is my thing. Did you read the Deutsche Bank settlement with the New York- I did, yes. Yes, and what does it say in there? Epstein had multiple financial transactions

which broke bank rules, in which he's transferring money to Eastern European women for apparent sex trafficking purposes. It's in the fucking report there, Michael, from the New York Financial Services, in which they fined the bank for breaking its own policies, for sending and wiring money all over the world for apparent purposes after he's a convicted sex offender. I mean, you think he's wiring all of these money for hulkers just for himself? Because

that's not even what they say in the New York Financial Services document regarding the Deutsche Bank settlement. You're basically saying that people are doing this to get rich. If he's participating in a trafficking conspiracy to supply miners to others, how is it that over the course of over a decade of incredibly intensive and lucrative litigation, not a single credible allegation of a third party individual having minors trafficking them to has been established. How come after every media outlet at least post 2018 became hugely invested in this story so you have Netflix

documentaries, HBO documentaries, newspaper and magazine articles, podcasts out the wazoo. How come none of them have ever established any third party individual to whom a minor was trafficked? Or is it because everybody's just so afraid of offending Bill Clinton, really? Well, no, no, but that's not accurate. How come they couldn't extract a lucrative settlement

from Bill Clinton if the American government is politically accused? Michael, the US Virgin Islands. The US Virgin Islands. Credibly accused of having a minor traffic. The US Virgin Islands, who has the most evidence around this because so many of the heinous accusations, I won't say crimes, were committed on their soil, had an attorney general who actually was going forward with a lot of this prosecution. What happened to that attorney general, Michael?

They were fired and the current attorney general who is in charge of the case, what? You still work for the Epstein estate So that seems like a little bit of a cover-up and a problem there No, especially whenever that's something that happened to have been intersected in the past week Exactly the lucrative dispersion of much of the Epstein estate they have attorney general I asked you this let me ask you this so Sager Yeah, go ahead Would you concede that there is a perverse incentive or an incentive for a

purported self-identified victims? Because by the terms of these settlements, all the purported victims have to do is self-identify as a victim. They can do so confidentially, meaning they don't have to be cross-examined. They don't have to have their claims adversely scrutinized. And then there's no downside reputational risk for them in the fact that they're not adjudicated to be qualified victims. Would you agree that there's a perverse incentive in terms of dramatizing claims to maximize

one's chances to receive the biggest possible payout? And were you aware that the four people that Maureen Comey and her fellow prosecutors had to settle on to bring forward in the Maxwell trial in 2021 receiving multimillion dollar payouts because they were counseled by their attorneys that in order to obtain the biggest possible settlement, they should cooperate. Michael, it sounds like you think

Galeen Maxwell should walk. Does that create a perverse incentive structure here or not? Or am I crazy? I agree with you. Or am I contrarian? I agree that it could create a perverse incentive structure here or not? Or am I crazy? Or am I contrarian? I agree that it could create a perverse incentive structure. At the same time, many of these are legally justifiable because of their proven claim in a court

where she was convicted by a jury of her peers. Did you know that full-fledged adults, so not minors, adults were eligible for these payouts, and actually one adult testified at the Maxwellball trial meaning she was above legal age. What are you saying that nobody should ever get, nobody should ever be able to sue somebody or have legal, you know, have legal justification whenever they are a victim of sex, like in the case of the matchball. Well if we're talking about child sex trafficking, then the fact that people who were adults could receive payouts because many years after the fact that they could claim that they coerced to receive the full amount of state funds.

But I mean, are you just saying there were no adults who were able to sue anybody else and be able to get any money for it, for damages? I mean, what are you saying? That our entire legal civil court system is false and sub? By that standard, the ability to claim damages in itself is a perverse incentive. Now, I agree it can be weaponized, but I mean, in the Maxwell case, you're basically talking- They're, great, we agree. Yeah, okay, but then I don't know what to say Michael

I'm not sure then you should support financial gain. You should support Republicans who want tort reform or whatever the fuck You know that all that is. I support reform around this particular issue because it's been so insanely Let me ask we'll try to close this up soccer a question for you is One of the things that I've seen from people who say, look, there's, you know, we believe Trump and there's no there there, is they say, well, look, if the Democrats had access to this material and Trump was potentially implicated, don't you think they would have released that? What is your response to that claim?

Me or mine? Yeah, you Sagar. Okay. Yeah, for me, I mean, look, I originally thought that it was actually a decent argument, but considering Trump's behavior now so far, and this is actually where I wonder if Michael would disagree with me. Michael, why don't we just release all of the evidence within the FBI and within whatever the case that has from the Department of Justice the secret indictment from 2007, which is

never yet made public, that was prior to that non-prosecution agreement, release everything that's in the case file, and just show it to the American public and we can all make up our minds. I mean, that's where maybe you'll be vindicated, Michael. Maybe it won't show any of the child sex trafficking. I agree. Release everything. I don't know why it can't all come out. I agree with Dershowitz.

Okay, good. Dershowitz said for the past 10 years, look, release everything. I waive any right to privacy. I've been for the past 10 years, look, release everything. I waive any right to privacy. I've been falsely accused. I'm going to be vindicated. So I want maximum disclosure. I'm in favor of that. But there are two judges in New York who are keeping materials under seal.

You know why? To protect the purported victims, mainly, maybe to protect others who could be defamed by those victims. So if people want to go lobby, I mean, Breaking Point should go lobby in the Southern District of New York for disclosure of the files that remain under seal. But I think the fact that Dan Bongino, I mean, Tager, would you agree with me that Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and all these people obviously dangled these tantalizing little tidbits in front of the right-wing social media audience on the idea that Trump was going to storm into office with his most loyal, tenacious soldiers and

expose the deep state, demonic, sex trafficking Democrats. And that whole narrative was obviously politically expedient bullshit that they very cleverly used to gin up excitement to vote Republican in 2024. And it wouldn't necessarily translate to any concrete revelations once Republicans got the power. The idea that there was a consolidated Epstein list that the DOJ has in some vault somewhere that they could just release was always kind of a confabulation to get people all exercised. I'm on the record here, Michael.

I completely agree with you for the political expedience purposes but I don't agree that it's bullshit. When I have also said it's a canard to say that there's some Epstein client list where it's like, hey, fucked a kid, now supports Israel. That's not the way that documents work. So Cash Patel was peddling a canard. Look, I'm not here to defend Cash Patel. I agree with you completely that the way that they framed, look, there's two options.

They either ginned it up and exploited perhaps what they claim is the rape of thousands of children or hundreds of victims or whatever for politically expedient purposes, or they did that, which is disgusting, or they are covering up that thing, which is equally disgusting, perhaps more so, actually on the latter part. I would love for them, I totally agree.

I would love for the maximum amount of material to come out. Because you know what? I want FBI 302s, the originalouffre, who you happily conceded was a serial fabulous. No, I didn't say that. I said that she's a troubled woman who, yes, has been proven to have lied about that. So now you don't agree that she was a serial fabulous.

No, I'm not gonna use your level of framing, which I actually do frankly think is disgusting because it points her as the central character, which you've self-appointed. It ignores the other individuals who I just hate. She's the one who introduced the whole sex trafficking theory. Yes, with the photo of Prince Andrew. It's like the photo exists.

The photo exists. Go ahead, finish your point. Okay, so I agree that a maximum disclosure should be made and that these concealments that are still in place to protect the supposed accusers, many of whom are serial fabulists, and that these concealments that are still in place to protect the supposed accusers, many of whom are serial fabulists, but yet received enormous payouts

from these settlement funds that don't even scrutinize claims. Because when that screening was applied to Virginia Gouffre, as more and more information had to be revealed, she had to concede that she just made an enormous amount of stuff up. We got the Virginia Goodwine.

I think that would probably pertain to others associated with this. She lived in such a life of expedient luxury. It's just whatever. All right, continue. She did not live a life of luxury. She didn't have an oceanfront mansion in Australia and a ranch. Michael, she came herself. She didn't make $15 million. She committed suicide, bro. Yeah, this is what I'm saying. It was so great for her that she decided to end her life. and she didn't make $15 million? She committed suicide, bro. Like, yeah, this is what I'm saying. Well, let me.

It was so great for her that she decided to end her, I mean, I don't know. Well, yeah, because she had a domestic, because she got, according to her estranged husband, she became increasingly violent and attacked him, the local Australian authorities agreed with the husband, and then she lost custody of her children and became distraught.

Could that maybe reflect on her credibility? Could that maybe be a victim inside? Could that maybe give some insight into why she was not called as a witness in the Maxwell trial? That reflects to me somebody, a pattern of behavior of somebody who was obviously, in my opinion, abused whenever she was young and as a child. And that's exactly-

Did she lack credibility? So Michael, let me wrap up with this. She obviously did, Sagar. I know it's difficult to admit because- He did not take my- I said he's on the record. He's lying. I just said he's on the realm of doubt. I'm not gonna sit here and besmirch somebody I know it's like you it's a difficult to admit This work somebody who killed herself and who obviously was a troubled

Prominent individual for the decade. Okay. All right. You're feeling so clear. So are mine. All right, go ahead Michael a final question here for you How do you explain? the fact that you had the Trump administration go from the big influencer phase one Epstein files coming out, we're reviewing Pam Bondi's, I'm reviewing thousands of hours of footage to two page memo, nothing to see here, we're moving on case closed, to Trump now saying, well there are files that were created by Obama and Hillary and Comey and Brennan, and it's all a hoax, and that everyone needs to move on, and there's nothing to see here. So how do you explain his specifically changing narrative

of what's going on here, and know the fact that obviously it seems bizarre the way he's handling this in the worst possible way just for him politically let alone anything else. Well I mean I think people in the right-wing media universe are charlatans and they exploit their charlatanism to politically expediently cater to this long-standing belief that's- I'm talking about Trump specifically. No, I know. I got it, but it leads into Trump, meaning there's like a pervasive, ever-present belief within right-wing media circles

whom Trump harnesses for political power that there's a pedophilic sex trafficking ring that's perpetually waiting to be uncovered. That's why they were so into QAnon, pizza gate, and that kind of transferred over in part to Epstein. Well, it explains it in that, like why did Pam Bondi in that now notorious February 2025 interview with Fox News say she had the Epstein files waiting on her desk? Because there was an incentive within this milieu

to dangle the most appetizing little snippets in front of the audience, like the beating heart of right-wing social media and by comment sections always believes that the triumphant anti-deep state warriors in the Trump administration are finally going to unveil the true heart of evil at the core of elite networks

and expose the pedophiles. Cashma tells us to put on your big poi pants and tell us who the pedophiles are. And so, Bondi was kind of playing into that assumption and she used like imprecise language. Are these people charlatans? You're not getting an argument from me. I was trying to make this argument like last year when they were pumping out this stuff for their

own electoral advantage. Now, I will say, is there a possibility that there are some additional materials somewhere that could be embarrassing to Trump? Of course. We know that he was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's for like 15 years. Jeffrey Epstein is on tape that was released by Michael Wolff saying, I'm Donald Trump's closest friend or I was his closest friend. Now, could that be puffery by Epstein who loved to exaggerate his influence? Well, I mean, Trump also said he knew him for 15 years, so. Yeah, exactly. So, I mean, there could be something that is embarrassing on Trump somewhere in the archives

here. That wouldn't be surprising at all. Michael Wolff claims that Epstein displayed to him like pictures or Polaroid photos of Trump like sitting around with like topless young women or something. There was no claim that those women in the photos were minors, but like Trump was also in these modeling circles, that's how he met Melania. Right? And Epstein also, you know, he-

Michael, Michael, I just gotta point out man, this is the same hearsay that you're indicting the intelligence quote. You're like, oh, Michael Wolff. By the way, Michael Wolff is a fucking serial fabulous. Are we gonna sit here and not say that? He literally made shit up in his book in fury. Like why is it that the secondhand account here from Michael Wolfe is worth it? No, but it is. No, you're talking about, oh, he's got photos of a topless woman.

That's not, it's not, it's not hearsay. I'm not saying it's just positive. By the way, I- It's not hearsay for Michael Wolfe to say I was shown this photo. Like he could testify in court to that. He couldn't testify in court that he was told by somebody that somebody else told him that they spoke to Alex Acosta two years prior to that. So it's a different level of hearsay. I'm not saying it's dispositive. It's reporting. Yeah, fine. But Michael Wolf has shown that he has recordings of Epstein. He has hours of tape. Vicki Ward has multiple quotes on the record

from Epstein. Why is she a worst report? By the way, Vicki Ward has multiple quotes on the record from Epstein. Why is she a worst report? By the way, Vicki Ward has ten times the credibility. I'm not claiming that Trump is a sexual predator. I'm trying to, I'm arguing against that assumption now that has overtaken these popular assumptions. Alright. So, I mean, I'm not trying to argue that Trump is a sexual predator. Yeah, I agree with that, but I'm saying you're willing to take hearsay and reporting from other people when it's convenient for your point. Here's the Occam's razor that I. I agree with that. But I'm saying you're willing to take hearsay and reporting from other people when it's

convenient for you. Here's the Occam's razor that I tend to use with Trump. Obviously he'll just launder whatever bullshit he can to get through a current controversy. And the way that he's handled this issue is really amazing. I mean, now he's like voluntarily bringing it up when he calls into these right wing, like Real America's voice shows and saying Epstein hoax, he's disowning his supporters over it. So obviously, I don't know, like, does he have the presence of mind to know how to negotiate this story in a way that is befitting him?

Maybe not. I mean, he's 78 years old now. So that could be an explanation. It is interesting to me that never once do you hear Trump express sympathy for the quote-unquote victims. Like, a traditional politician would say, we sympathize with the victims, they've been through trauma, we're not going to re-traumatize them, this horrible person Epstein was a pedophile and a disgrace and whatever.

Like, Trump doesn't even make any perfunctory gestures along those lines. He just like goes nuclear now on his own supporters. So is he handling this artfully? No, but like, I think there are some, you know, more simple explanations than, oh, that means he's covering up the child rape ring that people accused Democrats of covering up

and now Trump is following suit. I just don't find that to be that plausible. All right, Michael, thank you. Appreciate your time. Okay, one more thing. Okay, I know this guy a little heated. That's fine. Genuinely nothing personal against Sager.

I mean, I'm waiting for the avalanche of comments denouncing me and that's fine. To quote whoever it was, Dan Bongino, I think we all have our big boy pants on here, so no worries. It's all good, brother. Yep, see you later. All right, Michael, good to see you. Thank you.

Thanks so much for watching, guys. We appreciate it. We will see you all tomorrow for the Friday show. Thanks for watching. blazing speed and AI power performance that keeps up with your business, not the other way around. Whoa, this thing moves. Stop hitting snooze on new tech. Win the tech search at lenovo.com. Lenovo, Lenovo. Unlock AI experiences with the ThinkPad X1 Carbon powered by Intel Core Ultra processors

so you can work, create, and boost productivity all on one device. Join iHeartRadio and Sarah Spayne in celebrating the one year anniversary activity all on one device. United by Passion. Podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports. Thank you for supporting iHeart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors, Elf Beauty, Capital One, and Novartis. Just open the free iHeart app and search iHeart Women's Sports to listen now. I knew I wanted to obey and submit, but I didn't fully grasp for the rest of my life what that meant. For my heart podcasts and Rococo Punch, this is The Turning, River Road. In the woods of Minnesota, a cult leader married himself to 10 girls and forced them into a

secret life of abuse. But in 2014, the youngest escaped. Listen to The Turning, River Road on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.