Julian Dorey Podcast - #324 - "Epstein COVERUP Began in 1981!" - DARPA Docs Expert Exposes Truth | Mike Benz

Episode Date: July 29, 2025

SPONSORS: 1) GROUND NEWS: Go to https://ground.news/julian for a better way to stay informed. Subscribe for 40% off unlimited access to worldwide coverage through my link PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey WATCH MIKE BENZ ROUND 1 HERE: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1DVx7tcKIg2716Bsrlw0jx?si=RZSlOd2hRjODshhsbST1uQ (***TIMESTAMPS in Description Below) ~ Mike Benz is a former official with the U.S. Department of State and current Executive Director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, is a free speech watchdog organization dedicated to restoring the promise of a free and open Internet. MIKE's LINKS: X: https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber WEBSITE: https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/ FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY INSTAGRAM (Podcast): https://www.instagram.com/juliandoreypodcast/ INSTAGRAM (Personal): https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://twitter.com/julianddorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00:00 – Iran-Contra Origins, CIA Structure, Proprietaries, Halloween Massacre, Khashoggi 00:10:51 – Proxy War, Khashoggi '83 Pitch, USAID's Permanent Role, Southern Air, Epstein Ties 00:11:51 – Southern Air Fallout, Epstein-Wexner, Fake Passport, CIA Hunter Link, Maxine 1998 00:36:26 – Reagan’s NGO Web, Taliban Opium, 100-Year War Funding, Afghan Opium Boom 00:46:50 – 3rd Reform Phase, USAID Dirty Work, Epstein Intel Link, Trump Iran-Contra Rise 00:54:41 – Epstein & CIA, Ed Meese Iraq, CIA Financiers, 16 Clinton Visits 01:03:09 – Epstein-Israel Deals, Bechtel-CIA, OPIC 01:10:24 – Trump, DFC & Ben Black, Rappaport Dossier, Bill Barr Cover-up, Columbia Intel 01:23:12 – Harvard Endowment Ops, Columbia CIA Merge, Sudan Ops, Harvard Hedge Fund 01:45:10 – Soviet Collapse = Soft Power, Covert Action, Union Street Ops, CIA Funds Teachers 01:54:35 – Schizophrenic Public, Internal Ops, Rise of Covert Society 02:03:48 – Breaking the Halo, Credibility Crisis, Zelensky Crackdowns, Control Functions 02:14:09 – Harvard 'De-Wokify', Netanyahu vs Soros, MAGA Structure 02:28:06 – Epstein Net Worth Spike, Saudi–Elon Twitter, Beyond Blackmail, Disclosure Paralysis02:44:38 – Mike's Work CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef - https://www.instagram.com/joeydeef/ Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 323 - Mike Benz Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There has been this question about whether or not Epstein belongs to intelligence. Well, welcome back to the Epstein Network. Ahud Barak was a military juggernaut. He was the head of Amman, which is the biggest intelligence group in Israel. Went to Jeffrey Epstein's home 43 times. Then you have 17 White House logs of Jeffrey Epstein visiting Bill Clinton's White House. In fact, what was Bill Burns before he became head of the CIA? Buddy of Jeffrey Epstein.

He was the head of the political affairs section for Russia in the 1990s when we were running the whole Harvard operation and what happened was by way of Gary Kasparov and a former child soldier in Sudan who resettled in the U.S. and studied at Harvard's Kennedy School met with an undercover agent who worked with this outside financier to get money for guns so that Sudanese rebels can use them to kill Russians. Harvard gets paid by the government to do this. In fact, this is why I always say universities are not what they seem. Go to Google, pull up a Google image of Jeffrey Epstein Harvard. Hey guys, if you're not following me on Spotify, please hit that follow button and leave a five-star review. They're both a huge huge help. Thank you.

Mike Ben's back again. Great to see you, man. Good to see you as well. There's been a lot going on since the last time you were here literally like eight weeks ago. Yeah, the world is moving fast. Yeah, I see a lot of videos coming from you, long live streams as well, breaking down some of these things. It was ironically. that we ended the last podcast with you talking about Elon and Trump and then like three days later it was like D-Day.

Yeah. Yeah. So we'll get there on that. But you've been tweeting out a lot of things obviously related to this Epstein stuff. So we'll go through all your findings there as well as some good old-fashioned USAID stuff today.

But one of the things you keep pointing out is like everything comes back to a Rand Contra. Everything comes back to a Rand Contra. So we throw around this term around, we throw it around online all the time, Iran Contra. A lot of people out there obviously know the basics of what it is. But what I would love to start off with today is a full history of like, here's the documentary, here's what happened with Iran-Contra, and then we'll paint back everything that you're painting back to it.

Yeah. The reason I always come back to Iran-Contra, even for things that happened before, you know, like Tulsi just dropped this 230,000 documents around the Martin Luther King assassination, which was in 1968. Iran-Contra wasn't from until 1981 to 1988. But the reason I always come back to Iran-Contra and why I think that everybody should really do a study of it is because it's the way to understand how intelligence work got structured after the first set of real reforms to the CIA.

And we've been living in the shadow of the structure of Iran-Contra ever since. So you had the CIA get born. born in 1947 under the National Security Act. And from 1947 until 1975, it had a free ride. It could do pretty much anything. There was no real oversight. There was no Senate Select Committee.

There was no Senate Intelligence Committee. There was no House Intelligence Committee. You didn't need to get written sign off to do a covert action through a presidential finding. It could get away with literal murder. I mean, it could literally go and assassinate people with a heart attack gun. If you go back and go to YouTube and put on the Frank Church holding up the heart attack gun with James Jesus Angleton and Colby, the CIA director, I mean, they could literally get away with murder. And they were also very sloppy during this period. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the traditional way that the CIA would move would be through the creation of what they called CI proprietaries, which was when the CIA both funded an organization.

and then directed or controlled it. And what happened in the mid-1970s, in the run-up to the Jimmy Carter administration, things came to a head because the CIA had been messing around so much with the anti-war side of the Democrat Party, which was becoming more and more ascendant during the Vietnam War, which was basically 55 to 75. As that war is getting more and more scandalized,

and there's more and more heat on the CIA, things come to a head with these church and pike committees in congress which turn up all the dirt on the cia that's when operation mockingbird gets exposed about cia in the media that's when operation chaos gets exposed about the cia infiltrating student groups on college campuses that's when mk ultra gets exposed with cia and messing around with mind control and behavioral uh influence uh that's when really everybody in society begins looking at their own institutional ties to this cloak and dagger spy agency the universities the unions that mean all the way down to the teachers unions the CIA was paying the national education association of a million bucks to uh you know tilt their policy and whatnot that's

these institutions are still around today but what what happened beginning in 75 76 and then when Carter gets elected in 76 is their handcuffs put on direct CIA activity. And so everything would require a presidential finding for every covert action. So the president had to approve of it. And that also meant that the president was therefore responsible. The whole plausible deniability cloak that the CIA had since 1948 began to get very messy when you had to have written sign off for all the activity. And the fact that there was now so much oversight of it made it hard to be plausible, to keep plausible deniability. And so the CIA had to change the way it moved in order to maintain plausible liability. And it moved into the NGO layer and

into the outside financier layer from the, from the 70s into the early 80s. When Jimmy Carter became president, a lot of people think back of Jimmy Carter, especially in the Republican spaces, like the weakest president of the modern times, he completely decimated the CIA's traditional capabilities. He did something called the Halloween massacre, which fired 30% of the entire operations division of the CIA in a single day, crippled their budget, swore off all different categories of covert action, and it was also during this period that the U.S. lost control of Iran.

In 1979, there was the Iranian Revolution, Of course, there was the Iran hostage situation, which sort of gave rise to Ronald Reagan, winning in 1980. And so you had these Democrats, and it's funny how this is sort of flipped in the modern era, because you have now much more anti-war voices on the GOP side than on the DNC side. But in the early 1980s, you still have the Democrats in control of Congress, but you had this Republican president, and they wanted to do certain types of foreign policy that the Democrats disagreed with. In particular, there was getting to Iran-Contra now, in Iran-Contra, you had two different, the Contras refer to Nicaragua and the Contra rebel faction that was being backed by the Reagan White House to topple the Sandinista government.

That was sort of the left-wing seen as Marxist. And so you had the 1979 revolution in Iran, which made it illegal to sell arms to Iran because of the arms embargo. And then Democrats in the early 1980s passed a something called the Boland Amendment, which prohibited any U.S. government money from going to the Contras in Nicaragua. What year was that again? I'm sorry? This is in the early night. This is in 1981. Okay. So the Democrats say you can't fund, you can't fund the Contras in Nicaragua, and also you can't sell weapons to Iran because of the arms embargo.

So you had these two different illegal things that were banned by, Congress which is supposed to hold the executive branch to account but you had a executive branch that wanted to do it anyway so they had to find a way to get creative and this is this starting point i think is very useful to understand how the intelligence apparatus moves when it knows it's not supposed to do something but believes that it can creatively find a way to do it anyway so what happened in the in the early 1980s is they said okay we can't get us aid money to fund the nicaraguan contras We can't get Pentagon money. We can't get State Department money.

We can't get CIA money. How do we still make sure that the Contras have a chance at overthrowing the Sandinista government? And what they worked out was a scheme. In 1980, the Iraq-Iran War broke out, 1980 to 1988. And this was when Saddam Hussein's Iraq wanted to, you know, saw the weakness of this new Iranian government that had just taken power in 1979. The Iraqis outnumbered the Iranians by two to one in terms of their military and thought that they could just sweep into Iran and take over huge portions of it. So Iraq launches this attack on Iran. And you would think, given that the U.S., Israel, U.K., all

wanted the Iranian government toppled, that that would be something that we would be supportive of. But there were tensions because we didn't want Iraq to have regional hegemony there this was we had a very schizophrenic foreign policy during the iran iraq war because i think it was kissinger who quipped um i wish there was i only wish there was a way that both sides could lose and so even though we wanted the iran regime toppled and weakened we didn't want iraq to move in and take it over and we were looking for ways to get inroads with the iranian government uh in order to work out some way to allow private industry exploitation of the oil and gas. Of course, we had installed the Iranian government in 1953

after after there was an attempt to nationalize the Anglo-British petroleum and and US, UK oil interests. In 1979 though, our guy gets evicted. Iran looks like it's going to be taken over by Iraq and so in order to basically do a favor for the government of Iran with the expectation that they would be doing favors back, We organized an illegal arms sale to them through Adnan Khashoggi, who was the biggest weapons dealer in world history. And for perspective on that, Adnan Khashoggi made three times more in a single year as a commission's agent for Lockheed Martin than every other weapons dealer commissioned by Lockheed Martin combined, three times more than everybody else combined. this guy he was distantly connected to the royal family yes he moved in the same networks as as abstein did and epstein would brag in 1987 that he was one of his key clients

trump would actually later buy koshoggi's yacht i think in 1989 for something like 70 million dollars not sketchy at all well it was a it was a crazy network in in the early 80s and it's amazing to look back on now because of everything that's happening with iran u.srael UK, Iran. This same proxy war that we've been fighting there since the 1950s is very much a key focus of U.S. foreign policy today. And so it's interesting that the Epstein affair is popping off at the same time as this tension is being renewed because it's a good opportunity to excavate the tombs of both of those. But what happened was is the plot in Iran-Contra was to use outside brokers to sell the weapons to Iran from Saudi Arabia and Israel and then

skim the sale the proceeds of the weapon sales to fund the Contras so wouldn't be you still be compliant with the Boland Amendment you know the prohibition from Congress on you know direct funds coming so it basically be doing one illegal operation off the books covertly to fund another operation off the books covertly. So it was a little bit too clever by half. What ended up happening was Adnan Khashoggi in 1983 flies to Washington, D.C., to meet with the National Security Advisor Robert McFarland. Have you ever read two articles about the same event and felt like they were from completely different planets? With today's fragmented media landscape, it's getting harder to know what's

real, what's biased, and what's just noise. I started using ground news because I wanted more transparency in my news consumption. They don't eliminate bias. They help you see it. Ground news brings together reporting from across the political spectrum so you can actually compare headlines and coverage. It's an antidote to information overload, sensationalism, and algorithm-driven echo chambers. You get to see how many sources are covering a story, how differently it's being framed, and which side the spectrum may be ignoring it altogether. Their built-in blind spot feature also shows you stories one side of the aisle isn't seeing. You'll see bias rating, factuality scores, and even ownership information, i.e., who funds the outlets reporting the story.

Go to ground.com. News slash Julian for a better way to stay informed. And when you subscribe today, you can get 40% off the vantage plan by using this QR code or my link, ground.com, ground.com slash Julian, link in description below. Now, go enjoy some balance coverage. That's the head, the national security advisors, the head of the National Security Council. that is the sort of apex predator of the military intelligence and diplomatic state. That is sort of the highest level in the cabinet. The National Security Advisor meets with the present every day.

The Secretary of State may only meet once a week with the present. It's a little weird right now because Rubio, Secretary Rubio is both Secretary of State and the interim head of the National Security Council. But the National Security Advisor is the head of the National Security Council, which controls the interagency. So everything that's done, state, everything that's done at CIA, everything that's done at DOD, has to be run through and approved by the National Security Council.

So Khashoggi flies in 83 to Washington to the White House to meet with the head of the National Security Council to pitch this scheme that if the U.S. supplied arms to Israel by way of Adnan Khashoggi, the Israeli side would handle the weapon sales to Iran and then would funnel skim to the Contras in Nicaragua to fund to fund the Nicaraguan side of, you know, of Iran-Contra. So you have like very different, I think last time I was here, we pointed to the world map. And we pointed out how far Pakistan was from Cuba.

And that's, it's about equidistant the distance of Iran to Nicaragua. Now this whole thing moved through offshore bank accounts and because not only do you need to have discrete offshore offshore. you know, foreign financiers who are arranging for the money and the illegal weapons sales to do another thing that's illegal under Congress, but now you need to make the money illegal. You need to launder the money so the proceeds can't be tracked back because it's illegal

under the arms embargo to sell those weapons. And so what the U.S. did is we created CI proprietary banks in the Bahamas, the Virgin Islands. We took money from those sales, and then we pushed it into the offshore banking network, Switzerland, Panama, and also set up a whole logistics chain to support the Contras. And this is where it gets back to the sort of drug story, because what you're doing here is you're running guns and drugs from the Nicaraguan Contra side. You have the weapons side in Iran, and then on the Latin American side, how do you get the Contras to defeat the Sandinistas?

They need guns, lots of them, matrix style. You know, the U.S. was basically tank or, you know, the Morpheus figure sort of giving the guns. But the other way was the sale of drugs, which is yet another illegal thing that has to be done covertly. Now the CIA had started with the Department of War before it was called the Department of Defense. In the 1940s, the Department of War was running drugs. through the golden triangle that the Kuomintang sat on. This is the Shanghai Shek Chinese nationalists against the Chinese communists.

We were taking the opium fields that basically the Kuomintang sat on and we were running them to convert to cash to buy guns. So you basically have this pipeline of drugs to cash to guns. That's how we get guns. That's the most American thing I've ever heard in my life. It is. So what started as a British thing.

You know, the modern posture contra China started with the opium wars in the 1800s. The reason that Hong Kong was a British territory was because it was seized by the British because the Chinese did not want to buy the drugs that British India was growing. And the drugs were a giant commercial. trade profit for the British Empire. China was a huge market. When China started having all these opium den issues, they announced a blanket ban on the purchase of British opium. And that's when the Brits invaded, bombed the whole South China seafront, seized Hong Kong. And then flash forward to the 1940s and you had these, how do you fund a war when you don't have

USAID money. This is something that I think is so topical now as USAID was just shuddered July 1st. And now the State Department's inheriting its portfolio. So wait, you're not the spokesman anymore? You lost your salary? I didn't know this was going to be false advertising. Well, USAID may be dead, but what's that? The King is dead. Long live the King. USAID may be dead, but the USAID function will have a permanent life. in American foreign policy. It is being moved into the State Department and into other,

its function is being pushed into other places like the U.S. Development Finance Corporation. And that also plays into the Iran Contra Fair. So just putting the button on this, we had had a long history in Southeast Asia of doing drugs for cash for guns. But when it came to the, when it came to the continental United States,

this was a big, big, no, no, because then you end up having the retail product coming back to American streets. And this is what popped off. In the 1980s, the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military were running a supply network to the Contras, again, all because they couldn't get USAID money to do it, or State Department or DOD grants. They had to use other sources of funds like black market commerce from the drugs. So they would take the coca leaves that had been cultivated by the U.S. military as a way to fund the anti-Marxist right-wing death squads that were all over Latin America during the Cold War. And they

flew them to places like Mina, Arkansas, which was in the 1980s under Bill Clinton's control. Bill Clinton. Barry Seals reaction. Yeah, exactly. So Mina, Arkansas was this little Air Force base in, well, there was a little town, a population about 1,000 people. And it was used as a CIA base to run drugs into. They also used ports in Miami for this as well. And they would fly the drugs in. They'd wash the cash, and then they'd send drugs or send guns back over the border to the Nicaraguan Contras. And one of the main transports for this was a CIA proprietary airline called Southern Air Transport. Southern Air Transport was formerly Air America. These are both CI proprietary airlines. The CIA doesn't really do this anymore.

Are we sure about that? Well, they do it through USAID. They do it through the development finance corporation. They do it through outside financiers. But you can actually go back and look, even in the JFK files, there's great documentation that's been declassified about this change in structure. because it's very difficult to run this as a covert operation without getting busted at its height air america had about 20,000 employees this is yeah yes because it had all these spindle airlines they had continental air services and southern air transport and it's all the CIA right that so well you can see why they got busted so many times on this when the CIA funds something directly this is how you have USAID having three times the budget the CIA now we needed to bifurcate this function of funding and directing if the funded by the u.s. government they're an asset they they they he who pays the piper calls the tune it doesn't really matter if the funding is coming from the cia if it's coming from someone in the u.s government who's in on it and understands the purpose of these funds and the subject group who's being instrumentalized knows that they need to do what's asked of them if they want to keep

the money flowing but at the time and then this because remember this is all before these big sets of reforms happened in the early 1980s it was you had air america around for you know 30 years at that time and so southern air transport was moving the you know the the whole supply chain around the drugs cash and guns now southern air transport would come back later into the story one of the places that it touched down frequently was uh the u.s virgin islands in st thomas which is two miles away from little st james yeah dangerously close right right and And remember, this is, you have Jeffrey Epstein saying in 1987 at the height of Iran-Contra that Adnan Khashoggi was a client of his.

You have Jeffrey Epstein later purchasing the island right next door to, that you actually fly into St. Thomas if you want to get to Little St. James, the exact place where Southern Air Transport was. And then in 1994, so Southern Air Transport gets in a lot of trouble during the Iran-Contra scandals. Kerry, who would later become Secretary of State and run for president against George W. Bush. The skull and bones election. Yes, the skull and bones election, where both sides of the aisle were Yale boys. They can't talk about it, though. That's a great clip. So, John Kerry actually

leads the investigation, and if you look this up if you want, it's called the Carrey Report, into the drug running allegations about the central intelligence agency in uh during iran contra what year is this this is in the mid 1980s into the mid 1990s but that's when he's running the investigation because he's a senator at the time he's senator john interesting put a pin in that but keep on yes and you know who else was all over this story maxine waters anti maxine was on it come on oh she was leading the charge i love her if you go to YouTube and you look up John Deutsch, CIA, Los Angeles. And you can watch what would end up happening. And just while I was looking that up, I'm going to just set the stage a little bit here. So people are familiar a little bit maybe with the story of Gary Webb.

Oh, yeah. He was this independent journalist who's working for the San Jose Mercury News. Did you see, did you see what Tommy, the T-shirt Tommy G. was wearing in Milwaukee when we got abducted? No, no. It was a giant shirt that said Gary Webb never forget. Yeah. Well, you can't forget now because this is very much a U.S. AIDS story and a question for how we're going to deal with this for foreign policy.

So, okay, so look up his Los Angeles. I think it was in Compton. Look up cocaine, Los Angeles. Oh, no, no, you can keep it. Keep John Deutsch in there? Yeah, yeah. So just before we play this, I'm going, yeah, okay. The second one?

The second one, but there's a whole, I think there's a whole hour as well. If you, it was in a gymnasium there, and I believe Maxima, wait, scroll down a little bit more. If not, we can just stick with the second one. Should we add full testimony on the end of that, or is that the 129 right there? Is that, well, that's, that's him taking questions for an hour and a half. Let's, we can go with, we can go with the second one there. Okay. If you just load that up and then I'll just, let me just set the stage a little bit.

So a couple things to keep in mind here. Southern Air Transport was. the CI proprietary used for this operation in Iran-Contra. Southern Air Transport is based in Miami, because Miami is the big port that took to the whole Caribbean and to Latin America. Southern Air Transport moves in 1994 to Columbus, Ohio, to service the Limited. The Limited at the time was the largest retail chain in the United States. Wexner.

Wexner, yes, owned by Les Wexner, the financial sponsor for Jeffrey Evans. Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein in 1991 was given durable power of attorney over all of the limited over as well as the Wexner Foundation. So the Ohio Development County Office worked out this deal to give tax incentives to the CI proprietary airline to pack up and move from Miami to Rickenbocker Air Force Base, you know, a military air force base, literally to move to a military Air Force Base to service Jeffrey Epstein's company, basically, because he had durable power of attorney, meaning he was the authorized signatory on the paperwork. So you have a CI proprietary airline that's moving guns and drugs and cash for Iran

Contra. In 1994, packs up to service Jeffrey Epstein and his sponsor, Les Wexner, so that they can move goods back and forth from Hong Kong, is how they described. Interestingly, the Limited also bought a big gun range, gun company, you know, sporting goods and hunting equipment thing in 1994, right as Southern Air Transport is moving to Columbus, Ohio. The Limited buys up a bunch of gun stores. I mean, this is the same thing that happened in Fast and Furious when the FBI and ATF were basically working out secret agreements with gun stores in Arizona. That had interagency approval. It had CIA, you know, State Department, National Security Council approval for Fast and Furious.

That's what cost Obama, Eric Holder, as Attorney General. But I think it's very curious that you have this same network that's involved in Iran Contra. And by the way, Jeffrey Epstein had a fake passport. It was found in his safe in January 2019 when the FBI raided Epstein's home. They found a fake... July. July, yeah. Yeah, right, I guess July because that's when he was arrested.

You know, they drilled the whole. hole into his, into a safe and they found a fake passport from 19, that was issued in 1982, expired in 1987. So that's right during Iran Contra. Very interesting. And it listed the residents of Saudi Arabia, right where Adnan Khashoggi was. And it, now this was, it had Epstein's photo, but a fake name. And they had four stamps on the passport, showing that he went in and out of, went in and out of Saudi Arabia, went in and out of, I think it was the UK and a couple other countries four times. I mean, this fake passport was so good in the 1980s that he was able to travel pretty much freely under a fake name internationally while Iran Contra was happening.

But Southern Air Transport moves in 94 to service Jeffrey, the company, Jeffrey Epstein had complete control over it with durable power of attorney. That means you can sign, you can broker deals, you can take out loans, you can run the business. And then Southern Air Transport folds up in, I think, October 1998 in Columbus, the very day that the CIA confessed to using Southern Air Transport to run the guns and drugs during Iran-Contra. Because a lot of this stuff broke open in the 1980s, but it wasn't until the late 1990s. I think Dark Alliance was published in 97 from Gary Webb. That sounds right.

And this John Deutsch, I think this was in the late 1990s that the CIA director was doing a Mia Culpa. He was traveling around to black neighborhoods. Sorry. Yeah, basically saying, listen, it was an isolated thing, it wasn't systematic. There may have been a little bit of leakage, but we won't do that again. And so this scene is John Deutsch, the then CIA director at a gymnasium. I think he was in Compton or Inglewood.

And Maxine Waters was leading the charge, and you can look that up separately after. She was the one who was accusing the CIA of doing this. for racial animosity reasons. And he was basically saying, no, no, no. It wasn't because we hated black people. It's because, you know, we wanted to fund a proxy boy. No, no, no. Listen, we still love you.

It was a different dark art thing. Well, luckily, he didn't give a speech about crack like Hunter Biden did. I would have made everyone. You know, it'd be a little bit more honest. I would like to see Hunter Biden is. You know, if we made Bobby Kennedy, the head of HHS, and we made Cash Patel, the head of FBI, Listen, if John Ratcliffe is amenable to it,

I wouldn't mind seeing a Hunter Biden, you know, deputy CIA director because, you know, it's sort of like catch me if you can, right? Deputy CIA director, because he knows ball. And he knows where the, he knows where the little balls of, what is it, cottage cheese, they say are on the floor. And shone him bicarboning. You take out all the liquid and then it's just, it's your fork. It's like listening to fucking Michael Jordan talk about basketball.

I really, like, did want to do crack by the end of that. I'm not going to lie. Find you a woman who loves you as much as... As much as... Did you see, like, his eyes glaze over where he was just, like, off into the distance, like, the end of a movie where he's just thinking about it, and then he was like, I'm going to get too euphoric if I just keep talking about this. You know, a lexicon for being able to control his own memory.

All right, let's play this. Got it? I'll tell you, Director Deutsch, has a former Los Angeles police... narcotics detective that the agency has dealt drugs throughout this country for a long time. This guy, Deutsch, is kind of a shamed girl. All right. All right. I... All right. Obviously, that is an answer for a lot of you. Now, can you please?

I refer... All right, now can you please? I refer... Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait a minute. He's fake writing things down right now. He's sweating. Got the earpiece.

What do I say? Wait a minute. Wait a minute here. Wait a minute if you don't like what's going on here, please leave now. We'll need a McDonald. No, no, no, no, no, leave now because there are others who do want to hear what's going on. She's got her Trump hand motions down. guy. She's ahead of her time. Yeah.

Will you please take your seats? I will come back to you as we roll back across to the center section. It's like a carbon copy, actually. Director Deutsch, I will refer you to three specific agency operations known as Amadeus, Pegasus, and Watchtower. I have Watchtower documents heavily redacted by the agency. I was personally exposed to CIA operations and recruited by CIA personnel who attempted to recruit me in the late 70s to become involved. in protecting agency drug operations in this country. I have been trying to get this out for 18 years, and I have the evidence.

My question for you is very specific, sir, if in the course of the IG's investigations, and Fred Hitz's work, you come across evidence of severely criminal activity, and it's classified, will you use that classification to hide the criminal activity, or will you tell the American people the truth? All right, you want to hear the response first from Congressman Julian Dixon and then from the director. Like, fuck that. We want the director. A tough crowd, man.

From York, from York, I'm sorry, sir, I will allow the directors to speak first and then Congressman Julian Dixon. All right, this is Deutsch. about CIA illegal activity in drugs, you should immediately bring that information to wherever you want, but let me suggest three places. The Los Angeles Police Department. Oh my God. He's working for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Oh my God. The FBI. Please. I'm sorry, others want to hear this answer. What a crazy start to that answer. It is your choice. The Los Angeles Police Department, the Inspector General, or an office of one of your Congress persons from this. Who's sitting right there?

Can you imagine the head of the CIA subjecting himself for this now? No. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Sir. And sir. got on you the mic yet you are nothing but wait a minute then don't speak out of turn let me say something else if this information turns up wrongdoing if it turns up wrongdoing we will

bring the people to justice and make an account i'll bet you will should we pause it right there yeah you can pause it there yeah remember the headline that came out later it said the CIA investigated self- for selling crack in Los Angeles and found no wrongdoing. Right. But in 1998, they admit, I think it was this 97 or when, what was the date of this? But the whole thing is fantastic in 1996. 96.

Yeah, so 98 they admitted, you know, kind of a limited hangout version of it. You know, that yes, it was done, but it shouldn't have been done. It was limited. It was, you know, it was not supposed to get on the streets of the U.S. And that was when Southern Air Transport in Columbus, Ohio declared bankruptcy and shut down operations so it was actually the same day you can look up a great article in 98 yes and in fact if you if you look at maxine waters and uh cia 1990s uh cocaine she was you know she was the hardest charging person on this at the time and you know it's funny how how the direction of a lot of

these go these people who run these investigations from the house and senate side and then they kind of drop it and get magically promoted because maxine waters would end up the head of the the banking subcommittee in Congress. Oh, here you go. In 1998, CI Drug Trafficking Allegations hearing with Maxine Waters and Gary Webb. This is in Congress. This is a year after Gary Webb.

Oh, this is with Gary. Yes, yes. So she was. My intention to call members in order of seniority, but I have been advised that the senior member of the two that we expected to hear from has deferred to... Oh, he was a CIA.

to come forward first, since you have been out front in trying to help us on this matter and come to grips with it, and that indeed have had hearings in your district and have had direct involvement. And we welcome you today. We welcome your commentary on the report and any observations you may have for us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Before I began my testimony, please allow me a moment to express my appreciation to you chairman goss and you know right you can see this is like two and a half hours so we need to watch this whole thing but what i'm trying to get it and you can even see like uh you know l a times reporting on this and whatnot but this was a very big deal in the 1980s and

1990s uh it was you know a huge political hot potato and a lot of these functions moved over to USAID rather than having the CI proprietaries doing it sticking under the show company right so this is we talked last time about USAID's strange role in drug running in Afghanistan, where they were irrigating the poppy crops in order to grow the heroin there. We looked at the suite of Ronald Reagan created NGOs that were involved in that as well. So for example, when Reagan couldn't get the CIA's old powers back in the early 1980s because Democrats controlled Congress and still hated the CIA he created a web of government-funded NGOs to do what the CIA used to do so chief among them the National Down for Democracy which which was conceived of by William

Casey the CIA director I was just going to ask how much of this is Reagan doing it versus like Bill Casey being like Ronnie I got this now exactly exactly that's what it was and you know William Casey's top top guy Raymond Green who had done propaganda worked for the CIA for about 30 years, midwife, that whole process. The National Down for Democracy was set up explicitly. The head of the National Down for Democracy, Carl Gershman, publicly told the New York Times, I think in 1986, that the CIA used to get in trouble when, or groups, Democratic groups that were seen as subsidized by the CIA used to get in trouble when those

revelations were made public. That's why the endowment was created, the National Endowment for Democracy, to fund them so that it didn't look like they were being funded by the CIA, but it's exactly what it was. It's the same thing with the U.S. Institute of Peace, which was also, I think, in 1984 when that was created, the U.S. Institute of Peace, which had a showdown with the Trump administration. This is a, it tries to say it's not a government agency, but it's 100% funded by the government. It's accountable to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It works in conflict zones doing the kind of work that the

CIA wants to do but doesn't want to put its fingers on. It has a mandatory 15-person board. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the head of the National Defense University are three mandatory spots on its board. So it has to be directed by the Pentagon, the State Department. You say mandatory spots? Yes, yes. Now this ended up being funny because the U.S. Institute of Peace, barricaded its doors, weapons caches were actually found inside the building when the Trump admin tried to take it over. They refused to allow the Trump-appointed board members

to enter the building. They deleted reams of documents. Elon Musk said his Doge people found them trying to delete a terabyte worth of financial data, including money to the Taliban. While the U.S. Institute of Peace was openly telling the Taliban to keep the drugs flowing in afghanistan because it would be uh it would have devastating economic consequences to the region if the taliban post twenty twenty two uh shut off the drugs so you have them funding afghanistan is just afghanistan or other places go to go to uh at mike ben cyber and then just type in u s institute peace and uh and you can type in you know drugs next to that if you want Yeah, if you're not following Mike on X, we're going to have that link down below and on YouTube.

You can follow them in both places, but you tweet up a storm on X. Yeah, but you'll see. Just you guys can see the receipts on screen because, yeah, it's scroll down. This is a video. That's like a two-hour video, but if you scroll down, down, down, down, down, down. Yeah, that one right there. So if you pull that first one. Is this what?

Or actually, go to the one right, the tweet right below. You can just see this is what it looked like on the U.S. Institute of Peace website. Again, this is 100% funded by the U.S. government. This is the building right next to the Department of State, right there on 17th Street. And what you'll see, this was on their website in June 2023. The Taliban's successful opium ban is bad for Afghans in the world. That's not AI? No, that was a live website link, yes, saying that it will have negative economic consequences.

Now remember, the Taliban tried to ban opium in two. 2000. Because we were growing, the CIA was using the opium to support the Mujah Hadin, the same way we were using the cocaine to support the Contras, the same way we were using the opium to support the Quomantang. This is standard war funding for the U.S. military and has been for 100 years. And so literally, I mean, the main bank in Iran-Contra was called BCCI, Bank of Credit and Commerce International, went down in flames. It was. a CIA bank, CIA used it for all the drug money and gun running that was done for the Mujahideen when the CIA created effectively the Mujahideen and funded them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. They would then become ISIS and al-Qaeda, where we would continue to back them until now you have ISIS-Al-Qaeda as the government of Syria. But at the time, we were still pumping up the Syrian rebel forces.

This is a nicer version, though. The current ISIS-Al-Qaeda is a very nicer, gentler version. Right. But so you'll see that the Taliban had the same problem China had in the 1800s, where after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2000, in fact, you can pull, if you pull this up in another tab, you can even, if you just look at, you know, just Google Taliban shutdown of, of what, of poppy and heroin in the year 2000.

Mike, is this what Sean Ryan and his source, the guy legend, is this some of what they were talking about like a year, a year and a half ago? I believe it's related. I believe this is part of the reason that we fund the Taliban in order to bribe them to keep these sorts of things going because this is how we support all of our proxy forces

in Central Asia. Got it. Oh, here you go. Look at that. Also from the United States Institute of Peace. Look at this. The Taliban poppy band, but go back in time. Look at the evolution of this. Go to the year 2000. Just go to like Google.com and you'll just see, because we'll come back to this so you can see the history.

Oh, here you go. Repeating the similarly successful 2000-2001 prohibition. But if you look at what happened, the Taliban shut down the poppy in 2000. That's crazy. 2001, 9-11 happens. Where do we first go? We don't first start with Iraq. We start with Afghanistan right after the poppy ban.

In 2001, late 2001, we invade Afghanistan, and it goes from being zero percent, because about, what, 70 percent of the world's heroin supply was being sourced from the Golden Crescent in Afghanistan? Taliban shut it down. We invade the very next year, and under U.S. military occupation, we end up turning Afghanistan into 90 percent of the world's heroin supply. I think it's something like 95 percent of Europe's heroin supply. And that was all under U.S. military occupation, stopping them from shutting down the drugs. But, yeah, I guess... Oh, this is four months before 9-11. Talban's ban on poppy a success, U.S. AIDS say.

The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded that the movement's ban on opium poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world's largest crop in less than a year. Officials said today, the American findings confirm early reports from the United Nations Drug Control Program that Afghanistan's, which supplied about three quarters of the world's opium and most of the heroin reaching Europe had ended poppy planting in one season. But the eradication of poppies has come at a terrible cost to farming families. And experts say it will not be known until the fall planting season begins whether the Taliban can continue to enforce it. And then the fall hits. And then the fall hits we invade and it goes from zero percent to 90 percent of the world's heroin. That's right. All under U.S. military occupation. And where is that money going? That's

going to fund our proxy forces in the region. This would go on to fund, you know, the Syrian rebel groups. If you look at, you'll see, you know, all sorts of NGO commentary about how ISIS and al-Qaeda are part of these huge international drug smuggling operations. And oh my gosh, they're smuggling the drugs under Taliban. Yeah. No, they're, we, they were our proxy group. Yeah. We commanded the Taliban to keep those drugs flowing so that they could be instrumentalized. to top of Bashar al-Assad. And anyway, so you saw that same thing happening in the Western Hemisphere during the 1980s. I believe it's still a very significant part of U.S. geopolitics in Latin America today.

But you had to run this through these international networks where you could maintain plausible liability. And so I, you know, this is, Trump was the first person to declare these narco networks a terrorist group. And if you look at the New York Times, the New York Times ran the same type of headlines that the U.S. Institute of pieces. If you go back and you look at what was it, February or something of 2025, and New York Times was arguing that there will have negative economic consequences for Trump's ban, you know, designation of narco groups as being a terrorist group. I was being a terrorist class. And what I'm getting at here, though, is this Iran-Contra story is a way to understand pretty much we have not yet evolved past the Iran-Contra stage of evolution. We had these phases of intelligence work, 1940s, 1970s, you'd have CIA proprietaries, you would have basically no oversight, you wouldn't need any sort of your risk.

and sign off for it then you have the reforms from the 1980s church committee yes yes church committee uh you know carter carter reforms and then you began to so NGOs outside financiers offshore banks became the the state of play and now we are in a period of a kind of third reform and there are very dramatic reforms happening to the intelligence community as we speak USAID, which took the baton for funding this in the 1980s, has now been gutted. 14,000 people have been laid off. The agency has been shut down. Only 230 people have been kept from USAID, and they've been moved into the State Department.

This is fundamentally a State Department role. If you go back and you look at the initial structuring contemplation debates that were happening in 1948, the CIA didn't. need to be its own agency. It was a State Department role. George Kennan, who gave the CIA its cloak of plausible liability under NSC 10-2, he initially thought you might be able to not have the CI do this separately. It could just be a State Department Bureau of Organized Warfare, is what he was referring to it as. He said the problem is, though, because of the public transparency of the State Department's budget, it might be infeasible to keep it at the State Department. Department because we could not conceal these funds in the State Department's budget.

This is how you ended up with this, you know, CIA, you know, being the place that the operations wing of it was. Because at the time in April 1948, this, you know, the CI was mostly conceived of as being for intelligence collection and spycraft rather than operations and... Covert warfare, effectively. Exactly, exactly. But USAID is the same thing. USAID does not need to be a separate function unless you want to hide something.

The State Department is matching grants for most of what USAID does. If you look at a USAID funded entity, probably at least 30, 40% of the time, you will see a matching grant from the State Department for a smaller amount, but where the State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor will give a grant to something that's also USAID funding. But a lot of times USAID will fund completely on its own. And this is because the independence of USAID allows it to hide. It doesn't have to.

It's not part of the National Security Council. So you doesn't need to be cleared by the White House. It maintains fierce independence. The only way to get something out of USAID is through the Inspector General's office there, who basically jumps on the grenade every time. This is why the Senate complains that they even Senate oversight can't get, you know, Even we went over last time can't even get a broad summary description of what many of the operations that's doing because people will die if even Senate oversight is briefed on what the program actually is. So we're running into this now, which is like how do you deal with the problem of a perceived need to do covert action?

And what structure could this proceed in where it does not allow you to run it as rogue as something like Iran-Contra was? Because the agencies and the networks that were involved are still very much around today. And I get back to this. This is one of the reasons I think you can't touch Jeffrey Epstein. You can't touch. You can't get to the heart of the issue. By the way, with the mic, just don't talk over it. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Right there. Perfect. The heart of the issue, as I see it, is Epstein's links to intelligence. And I know that there's a lot of debate over Epstein's ties to Trump and Trump world, and they are extensive because Trump came up through this Iran-Contra network. I mean, he, look at things like the casinos and the hotels and the real estate deals around Trump. and Trump's ties to figures like Roy Cohn and the like. That goes back to the 70s.

Yeah, it does. But these were all networks that became activated for foreign policy vis-à-vis Iran in 1979 and became big money networks. And there has been this question about whether or not Epstein belongs to intelligence, especially since July 2019 when Epstein was arrested the second time. And then you had Trump's Secretary of Labor, who was the guy who, you know, cut the deal for Epstein in 2008, reportedly saying to the Trump transition team that the reason he cut the sweetheart deal was because Epstein belonged to intelligence and back off and leave it alone. And we've never gotten an answer about whether or not that is true or false.

Epstein is arrested for the second time on July 6, 2019. July 9th, 2019, Vicki Ward puts out that article saying that, in The Daily Beast, that Acosta told the Trump transition officials that Epstein belonged to intelligence, and that's the reason he cut the sweetheart deal. The next day, July 10th, there's 2019. This is the last public state than we've gotten from Alex Acosta on this. He gave a public press conference. It's on YouTube. Everyone can watch it. Was that the one on the White House long when he resigned? No, this was indoors at a podium while he was still fighting the scandal. He tried to basically answer reporters' questions. It was the last question. It's about an hour and a half YouTube video, I think around like the 55-minute mark.

Alex Acosta is asked point blank, I think by a Reuters reporter, did you really say that Epstein was, you know, belonged to intelligence? as Vicki Ward reported just yesterday. And Alex Acosta kind of shuffles, smirks a little bit, and then says, I can't answer that question because of Justice Department ethics rules. All I can say is, you know, don't believe everything that you read in the media.

I know it's tempting to go down rabbit holes, but I can either, basically said, I can either confirm nor deny. Now, earlier in that same press conference, Acosta would stipulate that something, you know, had Justice Department ethics rules about him not opining on. And he would say, but I'm going to try to answer the question anyway. And in this case, he didn't. And then, you know, there's a little bit of a long and winding road here where in November 2020, the Justice Department's internal investigation

claimed to sort of put this to bed in a 348-page report that took them 21 months of investigation to work out. And all they have is a single footnote, footnote 244 on page 169, where they said, we asked Acosta if Epstein, if he acknowledged Epstein was an intelligence asset. And Acosta replied, quote, the answer is no. But there's a lot of hair on that. Usually when you ask someone, like if you ask me, do you like sugar in your coffee, I'll be like, no. I won't like start with the answer is no. usually I'll be worked up to that through some other chain of questioning.

They don't attach the transcript. First of all, I don't think that Epstein was an asset in the 201 file sense of it. That is, I don't think he would have been recruited as a human intelligence asset who answered to a case officer. Why not? Because if you look at the function that it looked like Epstein had, from the 1980s, to the mid-2000s. You think he was just a financier? I think he was a contact, what they call a cooperative contact,

or liaison, or facilitator, or a friend of the station. If you look at the role that CIA outside financiers have, they're almost never assets. They almost never have 201 files. They're almost never recruited. They are relationships of convenience where they will do business together when it profits both sides.

but they largely have an independent life from each other. Like, I don't think Epstein was full-time or did everything that was asked of him. And a great example of this is another scandal that played out during Iran-Contra, which was the so-called Iraq Gate, the Iraq pipeline affair. This was another case that involved the same set of countries, or at least very similar sets of countries. and the case of Bruce Rappaport. In the late 1980s,

and if you want, you can pull up an article called Intrigue in High Places, I think it was New York Times, January 31st, 1988, I think is when this was published. And you can also go to YouTube and you can play a couple minutes of an NBC clip that covers the broad strokes of this well. But essentially what happened was, The U.S. National Security Council, here you go, yeah, intrigue in high places. And in fact, if you want to play the NBC clip, just so you guys can get a quick overview of this, if you go to YouTube and you go to, you type in Iraq oil pipeline, Ed Meath, 1988, you'll see this.

And what I want to draw a line to is Jeffrey Epstein and other financiers who had their own life, but frequently worked with CIA or National Security Council, as well as foreign governments like the Israelis, the Brits, the French, the Saudis. Is this what you want right here? There's an NBC one. If you type in NBC, yeah, and Mises is M-E-E-E-E. Yeah, 1980. Yeah, 1988.

Yeah, that second one. Yeah, there you go. So what you'll see here is... That one. The same sort of networks. Now, this is five minutes, but if you skip, about halfway through, it gets to the guts of it. Right there? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

All right, let's play it. But wait and see how that works progresses. But sources confirm a New York Times story today that McKay has told senior White House officials that Meese had a, quote, important and sustained role in pushing the billion-dollar pipeline project. What's at issue is a federal law which makes the Attorney General responsible for prosecuting American citizens who try to bribe foreign officials. House Majority Leader Foley was asked if Meese should step aside during the investigation. Whether the Attorney General continues in office is a matter for him and for the President to decide. Aides say the President is strongly supporting his old friend and is adamant that he should not resign.

I see no reason on earth for the President to take any action unless and until... He'll give a description in a couple of seconds here, I think. Mr. Meese has done something wrong. Officials here say they have no indication at this time that McKay intends to indict Meese, but they admit that the special prosecutor has not ruled that out. Robin Lloyd, NBC News at the White House. That video has 62 views, by the way.

In this latest controversy, Mice finds himself caught up in an international web of big oil, big influence, and big money. In 1983 is the Persian Gulf War grew hotter. Iraq looked for a safer way to get its oil out of the Gulf. A plan was devised for a billion-dollar pipeline that would stretch from Iraqi oil fields through Jordan onto the Red Sea, passing within miles of the Israeli border. The pipeline was to be built by the U.S. firm Bechtel. But before Bechtel or anyone would put money into the project,

they wanted assurances from then-Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres that Israel would not attack the pipeline. Bechtel hired Bruce Rappaport, a Swiss businessman with strong ties to Perez. Rappaport, in turn, hired San Francisco lawyer E. Robert Wallach, a close friend of Attorney General Meese. And that's where the Meese connection and his troubles begin. It is a 1985 memo from Wallach to Meese that reportedly talks about payoffs to Israelis for protection of the pipeline. But in a Jerusalem newspaper today, Perez denied he was offered a bribe. Right.

And in a telephone interview from Switzerland, Bruce Rappaport also denied any bribery attempt. All I can tell you is that I have never, no, would I even dream. I don't think that anybody could death was proposed to Schumann or anybody else like that money in Israel. Meanwhile, special prosecutor James McKay is also investigating any possible connection between Rappaport and late CIA director William Casey, as well as the role played by the National Security Council. sources say then national security advisor robert mcfarlane is considered a witness not a target in that probe u.s officials say the irony in all this is that by the time any alleged bribes were discussed in 1985 a rocket already decided to send its pipeline through turkey instead so mese finds himself

in trouble over a pipeline that was never built let's let me break down why this is an instructive case study Because there's, if you look at the web of outside financiers that we have declassified documents around in the year 2025, 80% of the time these outside financiers are not formal assets, but they will still be in the sense that they are, they're donors, their bankers, their hedge fund managers, and they work with the CIA, but not for the CIA in order to arrange financing and broker deals like this. In this case, this is, again, the same network. You'll notice that this was William Casey, the CIA director, who was pretty much best friends with Bruce Rappaport. So Bruce Rappaport, in this case, was a Swiss banker

with very close ties to the Israeli defense sector and the Israeli government. Not sketchy at all. But you notice right off the bat, you have a very similar situation with Jeffrey Epstein, where you have, Jeffrey Epstein was very close with the Houd Barak. Ahud Barak, I think, 43 times, went to Jeffrey Epstein's home. Yeah, sometimes masked up pre-COVID, by the moment.

Right, right. Ahud Barak was the prime minister of Israel from 98, 99. Yeah, yeah, basically from 98 to the early 2000s. Also ex-special forces guy. Yes, yes. He was involved in that. What was that? He was head of Amon.

That one, Operation, whatever the fuck that was called from Munich. Oh, yeah, he was involved with that. shit yes right he led he led that special operations unit and then he was the uh chief of staff for the idf and then he was the head of amon which is the military intelligence group it's the biggest intelligence group in israel it's bigger than massad it's bigger than shinbet isn't that where pollard was going through amon yeah jonathan pollard he was handled by uh the dude who took down ikeman the fuck was that guy's name. Yeah, I know what you're talking about. Yeah, but Rafiayatan. Oh, yeah, yeah, that's right.

Handled him from Amman, I believe. Yeah. Am I on that. But Ahud Barak was a military juggernaut and prime minister of Israel at the same time Bill Clinton was. Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, there were at least 17 White House logs of Jeffrey Epstein visiting Bill Clinton's White House. Through the back door. Right. Well, at the time might be... Unintended. Yes, all right. Well, Epstein wouldn't get an indicted until 2006, and so you have a lot of these, you know, very visible meetings with high-level officials prior to that, although Epstein would do business with Houd Barak in 2015 with the Carbine deal. But the fact is, Epstein is this kind of go, you see him simultaneously meeting with heads of state from the U.S. and Israel, and he appears to be brokering at least in the 2000s. he's actively brokering investments with high-level figures from the Israeli government.

In what happened in this Bruce Rappaport case was you had a U.S. juggernaut of a petroleum engineering firm, Bechtel, which has very, very close ties with the CIA since its foundation. And you can look this up, just look at Bechtel's ties to the CIA, and you'll see all this stuff has been declassified. But you had this big, you know, kind of Houston oil juggernaut, which wanted this billion-dollar deal. And you had the White House National Security Council and State Department and CIA wanting to do this deal. They want, you know, they wanted this pipeline to be built and for the U.S. to get a piece of it. But they didn't want to publicly take ownership of it. They didn't want to be seen as pushing this deal forward because it would have isolated other people like, you know, like Turkey.

They wanted to be built on its own, but they wanted to nudge that process. And the main issue at the time was that they were concerned that Israel would attack the pipeline because of its proximity to the Israeli border, the fact that Israel wouldn't be getting a cut of it. It would just be Iraq, Jordan, and the U.S. And so Bruce Rapaport was brought in as an outside financier with close ties to the government of Israel to strike a secret deal with Israel in the background to secure Israel's commitment not to attack. And then once that commitment was secured, the U.S. would proceed. Bechtel would be able to build the pipeline.

And this would all be done through informal, deniable channels so that the U.S. would not look like it was applying its government force to broker it. Question, outside of just bribes, in exchange for what, for Israel not attacking? What else were they going to get out? we'll look up what happened the following uh a couple months later bruce rapaport responded to this and i think the title of the article was uh bruce rapaport lashes out at um you know at business partner uh robert wallach over this he actually published a whole piece on this and basically what he said was no they weren't bribes um everyone lied about this the special prosecutor which was invoked in order to run down this scandal uh actually there was no bribes

Instead, the government of Israel got a secret 30% cut of all the proceeds of the pipeline. So it wasn't a bribe to the Israeli Labor Party. And note even the parallels there. Bruce Rappaport was close with Ramon Perez, the head of the Israeli Labor Party. Ahud Barak was the Israeli Labor Party. It's the very same wing of the Israeli government. So here you go. And what you'll see here is that he mentions here, if you look at the cut,

So the secret deal that was struck was, if you look at the third paragraph, instead Rappaport says under a secret arrangement, Israel itself would have been made a one-third partner in the venture. Now, this would have obviously- Receiving a total of $65 million a $70 million a year in oil or cash. That seems like, now we're in 1988 money, so that's worth a lot more today. But that still seems like kind of low for a fucking huge oil pipeline like that, and they're a sovereign nation with a lot of money? Well, the idea is this is going to be a 30-year pipeline, and once the infrastructure is down, it's got a chance to expand.

You know, you still, I don't know what the conversion is, but it's still going to probably net, you know, but it's basically a third of the pipeline. And, you know, the idea is, is if the U.S. is looking like it's midwifing that deal through the formal channels, and Turkey isn't getting a cut of it, and it could inflame Arab partners in the, the region to cut you know to you know be for we could put jordan um or iraq uh you know at at odds with some of its own partners if it looks like it's secretly in bed with israel uh and so you need a middleman a guy who's got the money and the connections in order to juice this deal in the background while the u.s government is covertly midwifing it but publicly denying links to this And this is the role. Now, Bruce Rappaport, there's a funny story.

If you go back to the pipeline in high places, the high intrigue article, I think the New York Times one that you had pulled up earlier, what you'll see there is a funny rundown of what ended up happening behind the scenes in this, yeah, this one. This is January 31st, 1988 pipeline deal intrigue. So what ends up happening here, is if you look at if you just go yes he's uh by eat mees israel the central intelligence agency if you run a search for overseas uh you'll see there's something called the overseas private investment corporation just overseas is one word overseas in that article joe in that in that article yeah yeah yeah okay that request prompted bechtel to explore the idea of insurance

with the overseas private investment corporation yes a united states government that ensures projects against political risks. Yes. So this, this is a U.S. and I know it has the word corporation in it, but this is a U.S. government agency, a formal U.S. government agency, sort of got corporation in the name because it's like U.S. aid, but for contracts, for loans. And so in theory, the U.S. Treasury gets a cut of development work. So today, in 2019, Trump actually changed the name of the overseas private. investment corporation he merged it with another branch of u.s a i.d to create what's called the u.s

international development finance corporation which is the successor to this but it's the same entity it should uh it should be noted that the the development finance corporation today is being staffed by the the head of his ben black ben black is the son of leon black the 257 million dollar financier of epstein for the last seven years of his life touch of apollo yes you can see how these networks are the same today god damn it yes yes yes Leon Black paid $170 million to Epstein after the first conviction. Yeah, they said he's got some insane, insane accusations against them, too, beyond that involving some, I mean, impropriety doesn't even begin to describe it.

Well, he was a big-time Republican donor, VIP at Trump's inauguration. Oh, that's reassuring. And his son is now the head of the same, you know, the same unit that's been involved in all these things for for decades why is why is trump doing like it like i try to look at this mike and i don't want to skip ahead here we'll come right back to what you're saying but when you think of every possible thing that a very very guilty person would do in a scenario of being confronted with some accusations trump is doing that and his tracks are even showing that in like a comedic way almost he has he has laid the foundation of just guilt back to the

this Epstein guy so much so even that like now he's having health problems out of nowhere i've seen that a million times when people are guilty it starts overtaking your body like what the fuck is you doing that's a that's a longer conversation um i have a lot of thoughts on that um i do i feel like getting through some of the facts of this all right let's do like we'll make that discussion a little bit more productive but if you want to pull this up and this is going to get back to our us aid thing uh if in a new tab if you just pull up um ben black uh dFC USAID and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about about how this is you know Epstein is not dead the the past is not dead it's not even the past if you just go to

Google and just type in Ben Black Leon Black USAID DFC you'll see what I mean here I need to hear Riz Verk back in here to talk about the simulation theory on this yeah if you just do that like in a new tag he's got he's pulling it over leon black's son looks to prove himself in was go to google there's a there's a there's a there's a there's a there's a very specific one that yeah just just type in like ben black leon black dfc u.s.a i.d. yeah go down down yeah yeah benjamin black ways shift in u.s. funding try that one there you go what will become of u.s. yeah just put that in an archive i owe it What you'll see is, you know how I was saying we had to run it through these networks because there was no USAID? Like, you know, for Iran-Contra, right? We couldn't just give the Contra's $2 billion in U.S. aid funding because Congress passed the Bullen Amendment banning the U.S. aid funds for it.

We had to drop it on the ground and just they picked it up. Right. We had to run through these dark web networks. And this is, what I'm saying is it's the same, what happens now when you don't have USAID funding for all of our covert activities. activity in Venezuela, in, you know, in Lebanon, in Ukraine. Well, you know, welcome back to the EFSI network. So you'll see here what will become of USAID. And this is Ben Black, you know, who is now the head of the, you know, the finance side of USAID rather than the grant side.

And what you'll see is a lot of this portfolio is going to be moving into the same network that ran through Iran-Contra. And so getting back to what happened with the DFC in, in this, You know, Iran-Contra-adjacent pipeline in 88 is the DFC at the time was told by the National Security Council to put up $400 million to back this Bechtel pipeline. And the DFC said, why are you telling us to do this? This guy, Bruce Rappaport, looks super shady. Because Bruce Rappaport had his own checkered pass, just like Jeffrey Epstein did. So the National Security Council said, don't ask questions, we deal with the national security, you put up the money, put up the money.

And the DFC was running all these checks on Bruce Rappaport and saying, we don't want to put up $400 million for this super shady guy. So they queried the CIA and said, CIA, what files do you have, do a name trace on Bruce Rappaport. We want to know this, you know, whatever foreign intelligence you've collected on this Swiss businessman with ties to the Israeli defense sector. and the CIA produces basically like a limited hangout. What they do is they say, well, all we have on this guy are these public news clippings that we've collected over the years, but they hid from DFC that they had extensive dossiers

on Bruce Rappaport and all of his dealings, their own dealings with Bruce Rappaport. And so even the government agency, now there was no, what they claimed is that Bruce Rappaport was not an asset. The same thing that Alex Acosta is reported to have said, to the Justice Department in 2020, even though it seemed inconsistent

with his reported statements in the Daily Beast. But again, we don't have the line of questions. Like Pam Bondi right now, could the Office of Professional Responsibility that did that 21-month investigation in Epstein and his intelligence ties between February 2019 and November 2021,

that office reports directly to the Attorney General. So at that time, they were reporting directly to Bill Barr. Bill Barr was called by the New York Times the cover-up general for Iran-Contra. He was deeply... Bill Barr was? Yes, look this up. Look up cover-up general Bill Barr, Iran-Contra.

I'm telling you, it all goes back to Iran-Contra. Bill Barr, remember, Donald Barr, Bill Barr's father, recruited Epstein to the Dalton School to be the math and physics teacher without a degree. Yeah, and you can look at... Bill Barr is the master of covering up political scandals. And look, yeah, and if you just search the term cover-up general, Maybe if you just do, it might be in this article, but the Washington Post, I think, had a, had a, if you just do Google and just do cover-up general, I think they had it as a front-page story. Bill Barr started his career. So Donald Barr, his, Bill Barr's father started his career in the CIA, you know, was the OSS at the time.

Yes. Bill Barr told his high school guidance counselor, his dream job was to be head of the CIA. This is in Bill Barr's autobiography, by the way. Then Bill Barr starts his career in the CIA. He works there for six years, and that while he's getting his law degree. his first job is blocking congressional evidence about Iran-Contra. When Congress, the Democrats in Congress, were trying to get a full archaeological dig on the CIA's involvement in Iran-Contra, Bill Barr was the liaison to Congress for the CIA, and he blocked it. He blocked the whole thing, and then he becomes Attorney General for George H.W. Bush,

and then proceeds with all these pardons and blocking all the investigation into Iran-Contra in the early 1990s. This is why you had the Democrats, and it's why it took into the late 1990s, and the John Deutsch and the Kerry reports on all this to actually get transparency on Iran-Contra, because Bill Barr had been blocking it from the Justice Department the whole time. But you have these direct links with Bill Barr and that very network, because he was at the CIA during Iran-Contra. He blocked the investigation into CIA malfeasanceance during Iran.

Iran-Contra. Epstein is running through Iran-Contra, through Southern Air Transport, and through Adnan Khashoggi. And then Bill Barr is in, you know, putting the, I'm talking about putting the Fox in charge of the henhouse. He's the attorney general that OPR has to report to, and he's the one shaping the OPR report on whether Epstein belonged to intelligence. But the public, I think, has a right to see that transcript. What exactly did they ask Alex Acosta? Putting one, for words in quotes in a footnote the 244th footnote I don't believe that that was the only question they asked Alex Acosta no way and the way answered it the way answered it yeah you know I could see if someone says the answer is no I could see him saying well I was told

that he belonged to intelligence but I wasn't seen any documents how should I answer that and then them saying well listen if you didn't have firsthand knowledge then you should say the answer is no okay the answer is no great perfect put that in the footnote kill the scandal right there. We have a right to see that full transcript. What was asked, what wasn't asked. Because what wasn't asked, we'll give you the key to what to ask now. Alex Acosta, I believe, is on the board of Newsmax now.

Come on. Yeah, look that up. Well, here you go. Cover up General Bill Barr. These people are like cockroaches. They never go away. So here you see. Is that way you went back in 1992, the first time Bill Barr was U.S. Attorney General iconic New York Times writer,

William Safer referred to him as, quote, cover. cover-up General Barr, unquote, because of his role in burying evidence of then President George H.W. Bush's involvement in Iran Gate, in Iraq gate, and Iran-Contra. He has been, he got his career, he made his bones as the Iran-Contra guy who coordinated the CIA and DOJ side of Iran-Contra. And he became Trump's Attorney General while Epstein himself, or whatever happened in the missing two minutes and 53 seconds of the raw footage. that they said was not doctored at all as if we couldn't look at fucking metadata. I mean, Jesus Christ, man.

How long does it take you to open a door? Less than two minutes and 53 seconds. Oh, my God. So he's the guy in charge of the Justice Department while Epstein dies in prison and while they bury the investigation. And whose father gave Epstein a start because his father, after working at OSS, just decided,

you know what? The most prestigious school for children in New York City, think i'll go be the head of that because you know the people that send their kids there at least i could talk with them like it's the old days as if there's not something behind that of course there is right and it was columbia before that in columbia in the 70s and after he went to os s he went to columbia was where there was that that first real merger between intelligence academia and philanthropy you can look up yeah can you explain that yeah so in the early 19 in the late 1940s the CIA only had i think um 30

26 analysts studying Soviet... And only 12 of them spoke Russian. Right, right. And so what they did is they worked with the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, all the early foundations to pump up money into the university system. In fact, there's a great piece on this if you want to look it up. It's at the National Endowment of Humanities, I think. If you look up, Philip Mosley,

the Cold War organization man. Can Jimmy Wales stop asking me for fucking money? Just go to the CIA. They give you enough. Well, he sort of does if you look at Jimmy Wales. It's CIAPedia. He's very close with James Clapper. Yeah.

So, okay, so this piece is in the, this is we paid for this piece to be published, is the National Endowment for Humanities, which is a government-funded endowment. And it's called How Philip Mosley, helped Soviet studies moderate American policy. And so you'll see here, in 46, you see Iron Curtain descended over Europe.

They only had about, okay, two dozen experts on the Soviet Union and even 38 Soviet analysts, only 12 of whom spoke Russian. And so what they did is, they, it's the same network, so Donald Barr went straight from the OSS to Colombia. And what they did is they pumped up these Columbia and Harvard Russian institutes.

If you just run a control F in this for intelligence, Yeah, and then go to the next hit. Yeah, we got five. Yes, okay. So you'll see what happens here. So this guy, Philip Mosley, who's running the Sovietology department at Columbia, basically pioneers this nexus where Columbia University would serve as the long arm of the CIA for doing exchange programs with people in the Soviet Union,

with bringing dissidents over, with getting copies of social. Soviet literature so that the CIA could analyze it. You'll see here it says this on, sitting at the intersection of scholarship, intelligence, and philanthropy, Mosley created a field in which practitioners like himself could imagine, as Secretary of State, William Rogers noted, no line between government and academic work. No line between the government and universities. This is why I always say universities are not what they seem. There's no private market in higher education in America. Harvard was set to receive when Trump wasn't on the day of Trump's inauguration, Harvard was owed $9 billion, $9 billion from the federal government in grants.

It was that high? Yes, look up Harvard, $9 billion. Also, can we Google Harvard size of endowment? I forget the number off the top of my head. $56 billion. Right. So why the fuck do they need that money? Well, they invest in the very actions that they facilitate. What they get with this money is they serve as the long arm of the State Department,

the Central Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. military for doing the sorts of work that the U.S. does not want formal fingerprints on. This is how you have the Harvard Economist going in to shape the economic reforms of Russia in the 1990s. In fact, we should do a separate thing on that in a second. But even if you look up within this own article, if you just run a search for like CIA, you'll see that, like Philip Mosley, for example, or yeah, just like, you'll see 25 mentions,

but you'll see that he not only set up all these CIA fronts within Colombia, but he had, right, so part of this was, you know, was subsized directly by the CIA, but you'll see that he even had how many different security clearances? If you go down, go down a couple more, just hit the down button. You want to type in security clearances? Yeah, let's see, CIA financials, which case, yeah. So after the CIS proposed Eurasian Institute failed,

he ended up setting up a different one, but scroll down to, yeah, C-I-M-Rand, C-I-C-I, boom. Here are all the security clearances that this Columbia professor held here. National Security Council, CIA, State Department, Office of Naval Research, I think they have, what, like nine in total, and this is all to merge Columbia with the Central Intelligence Agency. Do you know what Hillary Clinton, where she's employed right now? She's employed by University of Columbia They've something called Where's Mike Pompeo right now? Columbia

The University of Columbia The CIA director Well, half of them's gone I don't know if you've seen them lately Yeah, that's true That was empty, maybe But And so where's Victoria Newman now

Where's she employed? Oh no The University of Columbia No No No that they're all at the exact same place God damn it Type in Columbia SIPA

This is the school of the international public affairs look this up and specifically within that it's the Institute of Global Politics but all of the major universities if you want to make it big as a university your biggest customer is not the students paying you 60k and tuition it's the federal government because you are running centers and institutes out of there that are helping a CIA operation or state department operation yes so this is this is the place it's got Victoria Newland Hillary Clinton Mike Pompeo and a bunch of other you know

you know, CIA operatives on U.S.A. payroll like Maria Ressa. But you can just type in Mike Pompeo, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Newland. You'll see they're all there. They're all, they went straight from. Victoria Newland was the undersecretary for public, for public, I'm sorry, for political affairs. That's the head of the political section.

That's number three at the State Department. The JFK files showed, yes, here you go. So Columbia. That's an old shot of him now. Yeah, it's true. Yes. there's a lot of less pictures now but they're all there uh the victoria newland ran the cia side the cia side of the state department arthur slessinger in

nineteen sixty one in his 15 page memo to jfk he was the he was the senior white house advisor to jfk jfk gets in in 61 they immediately have a problem with the cia bay of pigs all the cuba stuff jfk wanted to go on a different foreign policy track It's top advisor writes in a 15-page memo. This all got declassified in March with the JFK files. It's an incredible memo. And the title is called CIA Reorganization. And what Schlesinger says to JFK is if we don't reorganize the CIA,

you will not be able to administer U.S. foreign policy because the State Department has been co-opted by the CIA. And one of the ways they do this is by control of the Political Affairs branch of the State Department. So I was in the Economic Bureau for State. that's you know things around trade we have another bureau for for political affairs and this has to do with the domestic political affairs in a foreign country so every embassy will have a political section the political section is actually the most powerful section in every embassy the head of the political section for any embassy acts as the charged affairs when the head of the embassy is out so

the you know the ranking order is you know u.s ambassador then deputy and then head of political affairs. Now, what Schlesinger told JFK in this in this memo in 61 was that on the day of JFK's inauguration, 48% of all State Department, quote, employees in the political section were not actually State Department employees at all. They were CIA under diplomatic cover. And so while they were parked at a U.S. Embassy, they were not, they did not answer in the chain of command within the State Department. They were covert operatives for organized political warfare being carried out by the CIA. But because they dominated the political section of the State Department, they could set their own political policy for the country. If the State Department did not want to overthrow that

regime, but the political section, the CIA did, then the CIA could simply use the bandwidth of the political section of the embassy to make contact with the various dissident groups. to run money to them, to help them logistically, to connect them, and run a parallel operation without it observing the typical White House National Security Council chain of command. And he gave examples where he said in some embassies, 80% of the political affairs staff are CIA, not even State Department at all. In fact, who was Joe Biden's CIA director, Bill Burns? What was Bill Burns before he became head of the CIA?

A buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. Well, yes, yes. In the 1990s, Bill Burns was the head of the political section for the U.S. Embassy in Russia in Moscow. So he ran the CIA. Bill Burns, we're told never worked a day at the CIA in his whole life before he was handed the range to be the CIA director. He was a State Department guy the whole time. But where was he at state? He was the head of the political affairs section for Russia in the 1990s when we were running the whole Harvard operation,

which we should get to after this but the second the second part of this i don't know where to go with this guy bro it's like just four trains at any one time but then bill burns was the head of the entire political affairs branch of the state department before he became deputy secretary of state um but he ran the cia side of the state department until 2014 when he then met with epstein three times when he went on to run the carnegie endowment which again puts Epstein right there. How's Epstein while he's working out deals with the Houd Barak? This is right at the time of the carbine investments and all this.

He's simultaneously meeting with... All post-conviction, by the way. Right, all post-conviction. And being funded by Leon Black at the time. But he's meeting with the guy who ran the entire CIA side of the State Department, who's then presumably meeting with Epstein to get funding for the Carnegie Endowment. I mean, why, I don't think Bill Burns was participating in child sex trafficking or necessary, you know, I don't think he was going to Epstein for girls. You know, he went to his.

That's reassuring. What I'm saying is, is you go to Epstein for money. You go, you tap into the donor network around Epstein. But who was the Undersecretary for Political Affairs while Bill Burns at state while Bill Burns was CIA director is Victoria Newland. And now Victoria Newland is at Columbia where they. merge the intelligence world with, you know, with academia and outside funding from the foundations. And that's where Donald Barr went right after the OSS. Right as the CIA was pumping up Columbia, he goes right to Columbia and then to the Dalton School where they recruit Epstein.

But on the Harvard thing, there's a great, if you type, if you go to the nation, if you go to Google and type in the nation, the Harvard Boys do Russia, the article is called. And this is a great example of like how this works. great title. Yeah, it's fantastic. And there's a million pieces on this, even in the Harvard Crimson. Oh, wait, they got Harvard on Harvard Crime. Yeah. Good for them. All right. Nice work, Crimson. Yeah, yeah. The Harvard Boys Do Russia after seven years of economic, quote-unquote, reform financed by billions of dollars in the U.S. This is, when is this from Beef, 1998? Yeah, yeah. So we were privatizing Russia at the time. Russia threw up the white flag. you know, in 9091, we are, Yeltsin basically puts, you know, his whole trust in the US government

to make Russia a small L liberal Western democracy and to privatize the trillions of dollars in state held assets. The entire Soviet Union, you know, was basically under communist government structure. It was all held publicly. So it's being sold off to Wall Street and London and is being done by Harvard University by way of USA. So type in, for example, Harvard Institute. Was Larry Summers involved with this? Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs. So essential, so Chubais was basically the U.S. aligned oligarch that we ran through

this Anatoly Chubais, a darling of U.S. and Western financial establishments. He was the oligarch that we, in addition to a few other folks. that we can get to, that we ran the Harvard-USAid CIA opt-through here in order to privatize Russia's economy and sell it off to Harvard University and George Soros. So essential to the implement, not even joking, essential to the implementation of Chubais's policies were the enthusiastic support of the Clinton administration, and who was, remember, 1998, Ahud Barak is the Prime Minister of Israel, Jeffrey Epstein is visiting the Clinton White House 17 times, and you have this whole sort of Russia.

Well, okay, we'll get to that in a sec. So, and it's key representative for foreign economic assistance in Moscow, the Harvard Institute for International Development. Okay, so this was who the Clinton White House was deputizing to go into Russia and get them to privatize and set up legal and economic reforms that the State Department wanted. We tapped the Harvard Institute of International Development to do that. Now, if that name sounds familiar, what is the aid sound for, what does the aid stand for in USAID?

It's the U.S. Agency for International Development. This is Harvard's version of it, the Harvard Institute for International Development. Institute, agency, same shit, different. And in fact, they were funded by USAID to do this. Oh, I love that. This is how the waterfall. This is how the structure is, right? So the Harvard Institute for International Development, using the prestige of Harvard's names and connections in the admin,

Harvard Institute of International Development officials acquired virtual carte blanche over the U.S. economic aid program to Russia with minimal oversight by the government agencies involved. This is how you have plausible liability. Minimal oversight. With this access and their close alliance with Chubais in his circle, they allegedly profited on the side,

and we'll get to how this happened, yet few Americans are aware of the Harvard Institute of International Development's role in Russian privatization and its role in taxpayer funds. Now, before we get to this next section, me do a little bit of world building here okay so you're going to see that this is the u.s russian investment symposium at harvard's kennedy school where was epstein most active within harvard go to google pull up a pull up a google image of geoffrey epstein harvard alan darshowitz's office

well the harvard candy school in particular uh he he gave millions of dollars through the wexner foundation specifically to the harvard uh harvard candy center the harvard candy center is one what is used to do government reforms. Yes, so these are millions of dollars that Epstein gave to the Harvard Candy School. In fact, if you wanna know another really fun thing on this, type in, pull the new tab and go to New York Post. New York Post, Gary Kasparov, Sudan.

Casparoff with a K. Yeah, with a K. Sudan, Harvard. It's going to be good enough. Yeah, there you go. Wait. Jane Street, Coom. Is this the... Okay, we'll pull up that first one and see if...

Why is it pulling up all the SBF stuff? Okay, here you go. All right, so look at this. Wall Street Titan... Wait, that one. Go back to that show. Okay. Well... All right.

All right. Wall Street Titan who hired SBF defrauded into spending $7 million on AK-47's grenades for South Sudan and Kuplot. Let's talk about. about this. All right. So this is all the suit's coming off. Shit's getting real. This is super, super recent, okay? And we're going to come back

to the Russia story in a sec, Russia and Harvard. Because actually, one more thing before I talk about this, I'm sorry, one more tab. Penny Pritzker Harvard Corporation. Who's running Harvard right now? Penny Pritzker, Harvard Corporation, and then

you can see that you can just, if you pull that up right now, just everyone can see that I'm not make this up. So she is currently running the Harvard Corporation, the hedge fund on top of Harvard University. Now, the hedge fund. Yes. Now, yes, yes, because that's the, that's the, that's the, that's the endowment. They, they, they watch this all through. They invest in, you know, hedge fund and private equity and alternative asset funds. That's how they make the money on their $56 billion dollar endowment. So now look, now type Penny Pritzker, Ukraine reconstruction, because I want to connect this so it's not ancient history. I'm going to show you how Harvard is doing today what Harvard was doing in the 1990s,

running the same operation. So Penny Fritzker, while she was the head of the Harvard Corporation running the investments of the Harvard Management Fund, was simultaneously serving as the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine's Economic Recovery, starting in September 23. This is the same thing Harvard was doing to make billions of dollars for the Harvard Endowment in Russia. So I just want to pull that up so that when we, when we go back to the, and to put the button on the Harvard Candy School, go back to the, yeah, that one right there. So here's what happened. We again have this Russia op, Russia and Harvard for CIA covert action. So what happened here was you have this co-founder of Jane Street, which is, you know, this major Wall Street

trading firm where s bf got his start right where sbf got to start and what you'll see here is by way of gary casparov gary casparov was the chess player well the chess player who became the cia state department backed opposition figure in russia in the early 2000s they ran him for president he became the head of all these you know u.s aid uh you know NGOs in russia he was an early putin dissident in the early 2000s using the clout of his international fame. Now he's been living in New York, I think, for the past decade and some. But what you'll see here is this was an operation to run guns to Sedan. And what happened was these, so if you scroll down, I'm going to walk you through this.

Okay, so you have Grinieri 53 allegedly provided $7 million in two payments after meeting with an Ajax at a midtown Manhattan. Hatton Condominium. In 2024. Yes. And that his financing was vital to the plan. And if you scroll down, I'll say, okay, so he's a longtime supporter of human rights causes. And he thought that he was just paying for human rights, you know, affairs in Sudan.

So if you scroll down, the case also references chess champion Gary Kasparov, though he's not named as a defendant in any wrongdoing. Ajax, a former child soldier in Sudan. Sudan, who resettled in the U.S. and studied at Harvard's Kennedy School and worked as a World Bank economist before becoming a South Sudanese opposition activist. He and Keach, the other guy from Harvard Kennedy School, who get rolled up in this, met with an undercover agent for weapons in a Phoenix warehouse. And if you scroll down one more time, this is where your aid money is buying. So defense attorneys alleged U.S. authorities were aware of the plan, citing a public authority defense and claiming the State Department told Ajax,

in October 2023, it would not support a non-democratic regime change. They accused, okay, so basically they say the financing was allegedly arranged through meetings, including at Paul Weiss. Wait, go down one more. The law firm. Yes. And what you'll see is basically these two, the financier, the outside finance here, and if you scroll down to the Kasparov reference, you'll see.

Basically, Kasparov is also at the Harvard Candy School, where he's been running these anti-Puton ops for about 20 years now. He'd been working with the Kennedy School since the early 2000s. And so Kasparov introduces these two, you know, Sudanese opposition activists who are also getting, you know, fellows getting paid by the Harvard Candy School to work with this outside finance here to get money for guns so that Sudanese rebels can use them,

presumably, to kill Russians in the area, or at least Russian-back rebel groups. because right now we're in a proxy war with Russia over much of Africa. A bunch of these U.S. and French-backed governments in Africa have been toppled by what I've seen as Russian coups. We give money in arms to groups in Nigeria and Chad and Cote d'Ivoire and Sudan. Russia is making a play for those same minerals and those same natural resources, and so they back rebel groups as well. And so we need to run guns to the Sahela's, the big belt. in Africa that this runs through.

So we're doing sort of Iran-Contra for Sudanese and, you know, Ivory Coast and, you know, Niger rebel groups. Is that how you say it, Nigeria? Yeah. I'm always so afraid to say that. I just point to that one on the matter. Keep it safe. That one, yeah. Well, it's running through Harvard University here.

And so back to what they, what Harvard was doing in the 1990s, if you go back to that first article, we were on. on. Joe's been cooking today. Yeah. It's the Harvard Boys do Russia one. There you go. Okay. So you'll see that Harvard was running the economic aid.

And because of this, you couldn't FOIA them. You know, you, they're, because it's run through. You couldn't foyer them? Well, they're not a government agency. Oh, that's right. This is how they. Show company, basically. Right.

This is exactly. how SISA at DHS structured the censorship work. They said, oh, well, we're hiring Stanford University to do this work and you can't, they're private, private universities, so you can't get the public documents unless they're subpoenaed by Congress or come out in a lawsuit.

But you see what happens here is, if you go to USAID in this, you'll see what happened was USAID then funds the Harvard Institute for International Development to do this. So you have the US government paying Harvard Harvard to advance U.S. government causes, and what does Harvard get out of it? Well, type in Soros. Just control F for Soros here.

Okay, so here's what happened. In 1995, Chubais, that's the Russian, the U.S.-friendly Russian oligarch, organized insider auctions, insider auctions of prime national properties, the Harvard management company, which invests the universities endowment, and billionaire speculator George Soros, were the only foreign entities allowed to participate. The Harvard Management Company and Soros became significant shareholders in Russia's second largest steel mill, as well as in Sanako Oil, whose reserves exceed those of Mobile.

This is ExxonMobil. Harvard Management Corporation and Soros also invested in Russia's high-yield IMF subsidized, so again, IMF subsidized domestic bond market. So basically, these are insider auctions. Harvard gets paid by the government to do this and then they get first pick they get insider trading on the very

CIA USAID ops they're tasked to do this is the business model of Harvard this is why people say that Harvard is a hedge fund with a university attached because they are insiders they're on the ground they're the ones who are using the backing of the U.S. government to coerce foreign leaders

to make economic changes to their entire industrial structure and then they get close hold, insider, no competition bids on the very assets that they are commanding foreign governments to privatize. They ran the same operation in Ukraine and Soros, who also, you know, through the open society, and you'll see, USAID is there too. If you look at the bottom, according to Williamson, the U.S. assistance program in Russia was rife with such conflicts of interest involving the Harvard Institute of International Development and their USAID-funded Chubay's allies, Harvard management, corporation managers, favored Russian bankers, Soros, and insider expatriates, working in Russia's nascent markets. Now, obviously, it didn't work out. And a lot of the players that got involved with this are straight up corrupt. And the ways that it was set up, I would argue, are straight up

corrupt. And I'm not sure there's any good evidence against that. At the front end of it, though, before they made all those mistakes to do that, do you think that when a quote-unquote enemy, like the Soviet Union topples after whatever it was, like 70 years, 75 years in 91, do you think that there is a use for something like a U.S. 8 or not even U.S.A., just like the U.S. government to have some form of trying to get soft power over there to ensure that the next regime is better than the last, which obviously they failed miserably at, but the idea of doing something like that might make sense? Yeah, I don't even fight that battle.

I totally see both sides of it. I think different schools of foreign policy thought, you know, are, everyone's got a reasonable position on this in terms of the role of covert action versus, you know, if you don't do it, you see the territory to Russia, China, the like. The issue is, is in order to get around the handcuffs that are put on the intelligence agencies, they end up co-opting outside institutions who we do business with. we are paying $9 billion to Harvard University until Trump just put them through the ringer with a lot of these cuts. $9 billion of our tax money goes to Harvard and that's not so that Harvard can

research the impact of climate change on squirrels. They are an arm of the CIA and what happens is what happens when you become so, because they always call us the third option, right? You don't want to go to war with the country but you don't want to leave it alone entirely. So covert action is like the third option. You know, we're in there.

We're influencing things, but, you know, we're not committing huge amounts of money, but we are in the game secretly. And the problem is, in order to structure that covert action so that it doesn't have U.S. government fingerprints, and because the CIA, you know, does not really do these proprietaries anymore, you end up having to use other pieces on the chessboard that we all know and interact with, whether that's the unions, like the AFL-CIO, the biggest union in America, which has been, you know, the union arm of the CIA since the 1950s.

The union arm of the CIA, you started to talk about this last time. Yeah. Can you expand upon that? Well, you know, there used to be called the AFL-CIA. Yeah. Yeah. So unions are muscle. They're street muscle.

They also control logistics. They control the ports. They control the trucks. They control, you know, the roads. If we want to get, okay, this time while I was at state, Belarus. In Belarus, in the summer of 2020, we tried to run a regime change operation against Lukashenko, who was, you know, the head, called what, the last dictator of Europe is what we always called them.

You know, Belarus was very closely aligned with Russia. How did we run the attempted color revolution against Lukashenko in 2020? We went straight to the unions. We went to the National Endowment for Democracy's Solidarity Center that's named after the Solidary Movement in Poland, which was the union workers group in Poland under Lekwalesa, that toppled the Soviet government during the Cold War. And, you know, this has all come out declassified.

The CIA was running black duffel bags of cash. to the Solidarity Movement. That was a CIA-funded union group, union movement. It relies on masses of workers taking to the streets and because the unions are how industry is effectuated through labor, if the unions all agree to walk out and boycott,

then the whole country shuts down. Our strategy, whenever we are trying to do a bottom-up revolution, as opposed to a top-down military coup, if we do a people-powered color revolution, is to get masses of people to take to the street, shut down the roads, shut down the industry. So there's nothing for the dictator to weaponize. They can't, there's no economy pumping into the country

because nobody's getting paid. The hospitals aren't working because the hospital workers have all run out. The schools aren't working because the teachers unions have all walked out. There's no oil in the country because all the oil workers have all worked out, walked out. There's no mining in the country because all the mining workers have all walked out.

And so the whole country shuts down. Now there's no money to pay the police. There's no money to pay the military. And so you can't even pay for people to contain the riots because there's no more capital for the dictator to use while these same union groups are surrounding the parliament building and throwing Molotov cocktails in police cars in a peaceful protest. Very peaceful. Right.

So we use, you know, the union stuff really grew out of, before it was really taken over in large part by the intelligence and military sphere, there was a very robust community organizing apparatus in the early 1900s through the 1920s with union groups. And it was, you know, you had this labor versus management and in order to stop that, you You needed a counter-union force that would go in and break up those protests that would have its own. This is how you get involvement with organized crime groups. And you have the CIA moving through these unions for right-wing Cold War activity. And this is forward to the 90s.

Right, in the 1950s. And by the way, note, where was Alex Acosta made? What was his position in the Trump cabinet? Labor. Yeah. Labor is the unions. It's the Department of Labor is who funds. All of the, we have an international affairs branch in the Department of Labor. And they give tens of millions of dollars to AFL, CIA affiliates

so that their branch in Belarus will take to the streets. Their branch in Brazil will, you know, will help, you know, the Workers' Party leader there, I'll just say. And in Germany, you mean, you can look this up. This came out in the JFK files, the fully declassified version of this, but even look at the teachers unions. So Randy Weingarten, who is the head of the American Federation of teachers. What was she doing in Ukraine, you know, a dozen times during the...

Look at Randy Weingarten in Ukraine. When was she in Ukraine? Oh, 2022, 2023, 2024. When we took over Ukraine in 2014, one of the first things we made Yats and Yuc do is turn over the Ministry of Education to an EU credentialing body. And we sent Randy over there to give a little consultatione? Now, look this up. Look up CIA, I think you start with a million dollars to the National Education Association. There you go. The first one on CIA.gov. Yeah. Now, this is just one alone. So this is, in 67, you'll see.

Now, the National Education Association, and so there are two groups that got a million. million dollars to this, but this is just through this one op alone. So a couple things. The World Confederation of Organizations of the Teaching Profession was funded by a CIA proprietary fund called the Vernon Fund, and this all got busted. The Vernon Fund was a sort of George Bush family adjacent Houston CIA oil mafia ring. And during the Cold War, we wanted to make sure that the educational materials that were taught in schools around the world tilted towards pro-US rather than pro-communist education. And at the time, there was a threat perceived that communist and Marxist groups were infiltrating

the schools. And so in order to make sure that the teachers' unions were successful in winning sort of pro-US, pro-capitalist teaching materials, we needed to capacity build our teachers' unions in order to make sure that the teaching materials and the policy and the personnel around major teaching umbrella groups were pro-U.S., pro-capitalists, et cetera. Now, the National Education Association, who got a million, again, this is directly from CIA at the time. That's the biggest teachers' union umbrella group in the entire country. The AFL-CIO is the biggest union group in the country.

Harvard University is the most prestigious university with the largest endowment in the entire country. You are not instrumentalizing small private charter planes like Southern Air Transport in doing this. You are fundamentally changing the relationship that everyday Americans have with the most salient and visible institutions in their own society when you run covert action this way.

But because they are. are the biggest. They have the most reach. They have the most context. They have the most pull. So there's a natural temptation to do this. But what it ends up doing is creating this giant schizophrenia in the American mind where people sense something is off about Harvard. Something is off about the unions which are not representing the interests of the rank and file. There's this mysterious leadership class that seems to make, you know, drive around in million-dollar sports cars and nobody knows what they do. but this is because you've you've because covert action is supposed to be initially it was supposed

to sort of be a weapon of last resort if there was no other way to oh that went out the window right away it did it did but this was the idea was that we would create this capacity even if we didn't need to use it in case a regime really went south but what it ended up becoming was just totally commonplace and now whether it's our tech companies or our teachers unions or our random university X. I mean, it's all the way down to, you know, the most, from the major, you can't find a major university who's not wrapped up in this. Whether it's Harvard or MIT or Stanford, all the way down to Florida International University, where Alex Acosta was the dean of the law school, which is now hosting the same way that Columbia has Mike Pompeo and Victoria Newland and Hillary Clinton. Florida International University, which was law school,

was run by Alex Acosta the Epstein prosecutor. They now host Juan Guaido, who's teaching there. Marina Carina Machado runs the democracy. This, we have blended our above board institutions with this covert action apparatus. And now you can't even reform the institutions without stepping on a CIA rattlesnake. All right, hold on one second.

Let's back that up. I don't disagree with that point, especially at the highest level institutions when you look across all colleges which i think we can all agree have a lot of problems right now it's uh that's a whole other rabbit hole a guy like a costa not the best guy to bring in obviously just because of what we've seen painted on his resume vis-a-vis this whole epstein thing that said big name draw for the university he then naturally is going to bring in a few other people that also maybe have some stains on the resume that you mentioned that you don't want to have in there. Nonetheless, if that's like four names right there at a place that has

350 legit professors, I'm making up numbers right here. But if it's something like that, I would say those things can be a little bit more accidental collateral damage with poor oversight because universities are trying to get people as opposed to like primary school and high school and stuff like that. In universities, they are really trying to get people who have instead of taking a career just as a teacher who have also accomplished many things in the world themselves only to come back to kind of teach those experiences. So they're going to naturally therefore, just like any other company hiring people, going to run into some hires where, you know, ooh, in hindsight 2020, we shouldn't have made that one. Right. That's fair

to, is that fair to say across a lot of these places as opposed to where that is a way higher percentage of the time it would seem like when you look at like a harvard of columbia yale and stuff like that yeah i can totally see that and again f i u florida international university is well positioned for that sort of thing because they're in miami i used to live right next to it pretty much it's you know that you have all these exchange students you have all these touch points with the whole operation mongoose you know region um and so it's a natural place to synergize that type of work the issue is is what happens i don't know that i have a problem if it's genuinely in U.S. interests, you know, with the pre-2016 work in theory,

at least you can make a colorable defense of it. But what happened in 2016 is all of these same networks began weaponized against the person and the movement that democratically elected the U.S. government. They went from weaponizing this against foreign communism to domestic populism. They argued that just like communism is a threat to democracy because, you know, it inverts all of the civil liberties and freedoms and economic, you know, liberalization

that is possible under American capitalism. They argued that populism was a threat to democracy. And so they use these same networks. Look at what these institutions are doing now. Look at what the National Education Association is doing now. If you

just go to X and you just look at, they just passed a whole web of resolutions that they would resist Trump on every front, that they would not cooperate with his, you know, with his, you know, ICE policy on illegal immigration and the like. You look at what AFL-CIO is doing now. They're sponsoring riots. The AFL-CIO had a secret agreement with the Chamber of Commerce

to shut down D.C if Trump won the election in 2020. The AFL-CIO makes more money in government grants than they do in members' dues. They get like $72 million in grants from the federal government. They only get like $68 million or so from dues. They are funded more by taxpayers than they are by their own revenue stream. So what happens when you have a government that the people democratically vote for? And you'll see, like, you know, there's a whole, there's dozens of these. You have a problem where our biggest institutions are dependent on this government money to keep going.

and but we have conflated them when it became okay as an op to target Trumpism the same way they targeted communism by arguing that populism is a threat to democracy anything that undermines our institutions uh you know um you know weakens american democracy but then these institutions are serving as the the you know the the scope of the CIA rifle then you have a covert society almost that is that is totally usurping the democratic will of voters. And then you end up having to destroy our own institutions in order to... You have to destroy our own institutions in order to reform them.

And you destroy Harvard University. You destroy our unions. You destroy our health care system who gets billions of dollars in USAID. Then you make the argument, well, now China is going to step into the void of that. Harvard is... what do you do if you're Harvard and you have nine billion dollars in grants to that's

you a huge proportion of which is to advance some international agenda whether that's on the energy sphere and and the green energy transition whether that's on seizing Eurasia and all the CIA work in Ukraine and Russia and you've got the Harvard endowment who's made all these liquid investments through their through their alternative asset funds in Ukraine reconstruction because Penny Pritzker is simultaneously the head of Ukraine Reconstruction and the head of the Harvard Corporation, they can't just turn that Titanic without decimating their own business model. And so because this has become so wrapped up in statecraft, what happens if the people

vote for a different vision of statecraft? Either these institutions have to, either that entire CIA State Department iceberg has to agree to surrender and all these investments go to zero, because now they're, you know, their business models dependent on it or we have to crush them as the federal government because you can't subsidize the thing that is destroying your entire operational policy it's like a gambler that gets way too far into a hand right like maybe maybe at the at the tip of the spear here when some of these patterns formed i'll even go all the way back at the beginning of CIA and they're like wait we're really worried the russians are going to drop a nuke on us so they therefore then

give that final potential end result of as the reason to say like yeah you know we'll color outside the lines a little bit and you keep it's a slippery slope you keep going farther and farther and farther until now the shrub has grown so big that like you can't cut it down you got to burn the whole fucking forest down and that's where it gets weird because you and I had this conversation last time even with something like USA you've said it

and people criticize you for saying this which is hilarious you're like listen, I'm calling out all the horrible shit they did and all the illegal shit they did and all the fucking shell company shit they did for CIA, but I'm not saying that every fucking thing they did was bad. But the problem is now people hear all these bad things and I get it. People out there are like, good, burn the whole thing down. And it's like, how do we get that pendulum back to where, you know, as much as we may not like government bureaucracy, the parts of it that are supposed to be organizationally functional, have the ability to function.

I mean, shit, if I had the answer to that, you and I wouldn't be sitting here right now. Well, you have to break the halo. This has been my strategy on this, which is you have to break the angelic halo over the thing that prevents any inquiry into it. You can't motivate Congress to subpoena these guys. You can't motivate lawsuits to break open documents and discovery.

You can't motivate voters to stampede on, social media for reform unless they are charged up about the things that it has done wrong because these things are always given a pretty name who's against international development who's against humanitarian assistance so you do have to give it its moment I mean this is when I come back to the church committee hearings when the iconic vision of that was frank church holding up a CIA heart attack gun yeah and can we pull that up we mentioned it earlier And it's such an iconic image. You're like, okay, we were told that the CIA is there to protect us and to keep us safe.

What a shot. And this thing is effectively a dart gun to murder someone but then fool criminal forensics investigators so that it looks like the CIA didn't kill him. It looks like they died of a heart attack. You see that and you go, oh my God, my cousin died of a heart attack. Was he secretly? You have to break the halo on this in order. doesn't mean every time someone dies of a heart attack they were killed by the CIA but what

but what it means is you would not have the handcuffs you know see i wasn't didn't even have assassinations banned until the until the 1970s there was no uh you know presidential finding requirement for the president to have to approve of covert action before this and we are right now we have the patient on the operating table there is a democratic mandate from the last election there is a huge domestic groundswell and then tons of foreign allies who have come out and said thank God USAID you know you've had governments that I think are allied with the Trump administration from El Salvador to Poland to Hungary to even to even Mexico the you know the present Mexico came out and you know supported the shutdown of USAID and a bomb did yeah yeah You can look up Shinebaum, her comments on the closure of USAID.

And because this thing had had a halo wrapped around it for so long. Yes, you publicly support the shutdown of USAID, right? And how much do we say we do there because, you know, we're supposed to be helping the people? But everyone knows what it is. At a certain point, if USAID is going to be an independent agency, it has to have its credibility. and there may come a day where the State Department rolls out another separate aid agency after putting it through the reforms. But you had 14,000 employees there under USAID,

and you just look at something like the DRG side of USAID. That was the Bureau for Democracy, Rights, and Governance. That was a full-scale shop for regime change. USAID had an office called OTI, the Office of Transition Initiative. And you can look up with the New York Times wrote about OTI. If you just type I think 2014 New York Times Office of Transition Initiatives. That is a

USAID full office dedicated to regime change. How do you justify, how do you maintain international credibility when you are all but explicitly saying yeah, this aid is going to overthrow your government.

You want some aid? And they wrapped this all up. Hillary Clinton warped USAID in such a perverted way. She had this concept called the three D's, the defense diplomacy and development. And she made the argument that USAID has to have an equal position on the board as the Department of Defense and Department of State. And in every theater USAID operates. And Obama, USAID had all these new coordinating councils so that every single theater that USAID operates in

has to be constantly coordinated with the Pentagon, with intelligence, with the state department so that if you're doing a USA jobs fair in Zimbabwe in Zambia, in in

places you're getting me now. All over the world, wherever it is, that you need to make sure that that is synchronizing whatever the special forces are doing in the region. Whatever the CIA is doing in the region, it inverts, this is bad cover at this point. Either you need to lie to the American people about what it's doing, or you're truthful with

the American people, and therefore every other government on earth, which reads our news, or reads our own newspapers or government press releases knows what that thing is really doing and doesn't want it for that purpose or they have to accept it reluctantly because if you want to punt on your IMF loan you have to accept this USAID money which is just basically a US influence note

this is what's happening in Ukraine right now look at Zelensky this week you can even watch you know, they're surrounding, I don't know if it's Zelensky's residence or it's one of the big government buildings in Ukraine. This week, you see these U.S. news institutions that have loved Zelensky pretty much in unqualified way since 2019, pretty much. And they are now calling Zelensky a dictator because he ran raids on the anti-corruption action network in Ukraine. See if you can pull up the Ukraine anti-corruption protests this week in Ukraine.

Stuff like this doesn't happen by accident. No, but these protests, they're going after Zelenskyy, not because he's anti-Trump, not because he's not because, you know, but because he's going after one of the USAID control control. This group that they raided, the anti-corruption action network, is funded by USAID in order to... Well, what's it funded by now if USAID is closed as of July 1? It's just sucked into the State Department, so it's funded by the State Department? Yeah, or it could have lingering grants.

Okay. And they also be... I'm sure they're jointly funded by the EU and NATO, you know, societal resilience. And a lot of this is also going to have Ministry of Foreign Affairs funding from, like, Germany's version of the State Department, the UK's version of the State Department. A lot of this is cross-pollinated in a transatlantic way where the U.S. U.S. will, it's like NATO funding. The U.S. will provide most of it, but they will get a transatlantic network of investors, you know, to go fund it. But this is one of the ways that we keep Zelensky

in line is we have like anti-corruption groups. So if Zelensky goes too far, these groups will write hippieses. We will talk to our prosecutor assets. We'll give. Well, this was, I mean, look at Victor Shokin. Yeah. Yeah. We know, what did Joe Biden say? son of a bee uh you know uh he was gone the next day because what because we threatened ukraine we had a billion dollar governance reform loan from us a id to the government of ukraine we said if you want that billion dollars in us a aid money you got to get rid of the prosecutor who's looking into the company that my son is on the board of son of a bee joe biden says the council on foreign relations he was gone the next day we control the process we fund the prosecutors

USA ideas, rule of law programs, we've given millions of dollars to the Ministry of Justice in Ukraine to implement these anti-corruption reforms. But what's happening here is, you know, this is a control node. If Zelensky goes too far, if he doesn't do what we say, then we can get a special prosecutor on his butt inside of Ukraine, the same way we got a special prosecutor on Trump's butt with the Mueller probe around Russia gate. but Zelensky made the mistake of you know he wanted a total control over power he's elections have been banned in Ukraine for the past three years Zelensky was supposed to either leave office or be subject to another vote a year ago so he will never leave he's banned 19 different political parties just outright banned them but now he is doing the Noriega thing he's getting a little bit too nationalistic for his own britches Noriega was a CIA asset

he had a human 201 file before you know he became president and then we said oh my god we've been running drugs through through you uh you know on your way to power but no way I'm shocked to find

now you still continue to deal in drugs after you've become the president you're threatening to nationalize the Panama Canal so you know what I'm saying is is there's still there's always going to be this function we're always going to have this control mechanism

You don't want to be a country who is not able to influence the course of events. It's easy to say no covert action at all while you're enjoying low, you know, low gas prices, cheap products, and it looks like all your major, you know, Fortune 500 companies are just best in class. Get to Toronto's main venues like Budweiser Stage and the new Roger Stadium with Go Transit. Thanks to Go Transit's special online e-ticket fairs, a $10 one-day weekend pass, offers unlimited travel on any weekend day or holiday, anywhere along the Go Network. And the weekday group passes offer the same weekday travel flexibility across the network, starting at $30 for two people and up to $60 for a group of five.

Buy your online go pass ahead of the show at go-transit.com slash tickets. ExxonMobil is the biggest oil company in the world. That's because ExxonMobil is so good. No, that's because we, you know, Rex Tillerson didn't become Secretary of State because he had a long-storied career working his way at the State Department. It's because ExxonMobil is a outgrowth of the U.S. State Department.

We didn't have cheap bananas in this country because our banana companies are so good because we use the Department of War to seize Guatemala and Nicaragua. I do like bananas, so I was okay with that one. This is what I'm saying. It's easy to say don't do any of this when you are living in the legacy of it

and you have been the beneficiary of it and you've never experienced what it's like to be a small, isolated country who does not have these capacities in place. But at some point it goes too far. At some point, you're applying to hard. We're trying to de-wokify, you know, Harvard right now. Republicans are, conservatives are.

We're trying to, we're trying to, you look at something like Columbia University, which is, you know, in the crosshairs right now. Columbia gets at what I think 400 million or something in government grants and you've got a Columbia University was a big outgrowth of Democrat foreign policy on Iran the Columbia Foreign Policy Network the Middle East studies it was a big part of this and so was so was Harvard around around foreign policy around the Iran deal you know opening up Iran relieving international sanctions so that you we could profit from the world's second largest

supply of oil and third largest supply of gas and um and we could exert influence over over iran as opposed to some of its allies with china and the like but what happens when Colombia itself gets caught in that proxy war like when when institutions become arms of the state that is not a small thing and especially when when is the you can start small because we have some crisis that's popping off and they're the ones position to do it but as these jenga towers scale over years and decades you lose sight of the fact that it's supposed to be a university it's supposed to be teaching what is the core function of something when it gets so deep in statecraft that any attempt to reform its fundamental function is going to interfere

with its government function that's right you know what's happening at columbia university right now is and i don't even agree with the reason trump is going after it you know um yeah i don't think that this predicate around going after it on anti-semitism grounds sinks well with a lot of the free speech diplomacy that the trump administration is trying to do it doesn't at all but there's a huge double standard when it comes to israel with this administration it's just how it is and and part of the issue is was getting a lot of this grant work and their Middle East Studies program is because the Israeli government

was the big blocker on the Iran deal. So you have all of these, you know, these webs of influence. I mean, this was something that even a Hu Barak was involved in when he was working with the Jake Sullivan West Exec Network and Avril Haynes

and all those, you know, State Department and waiting folks. You know, and Bill Burns, Bill Burns was the lead negotiator. on the Iran deal. And, but the problem is, is now Colombia, can you, if you are trying to, like, for example, like the DEI thing does get connect. This is one of these strange alliances between like the base of MAGA world and in a lot of

the kind of, you know, donor networks where you have, you know, commonalities, for example, like the foreign policy side of Trump world is very focused on Israel. The domestic policy side is mostly focused on things. like anti-wokeness and investing in our own infrastructure and the like and there are places that they that they meet in a very tangential way like around the universities that's right and and so you have like columbia university there's this there's this weird phenomenon that's happened where it's like the the administration that the people voted for do not want to their kids indoctrinated in this like crazy DEI woke stuff but there is a natural nexus between

the DEI world and the like pro-Palestine um you know like anti-settler colonialism yeah and there's a lot of weird funding with all that too a lot of weird organizations that just want chaos joker style right and they also want farm i mean this is another thing like you look at something like Soros, which both, again, like the MAGA base don't like because of him funding on these woke initiatives and these rental riot mobs, but same thing with the in power Israeli government. Netanyahu and Soros have been at war for a decade. Netanyahu actually... Yeah, might be the only thing

I agree with George on. But this is the funny thing is like Netanyahu, you can actually pull this up, I think it was in 2018, Netanyahu accused Soros of funding race riots inside of Israel with black is you know like I think Ethiopian immigrants to Israel you know funding race riots against

the Netanyahu government which is the same thing that the Magabase accuses George Soros of funding with BLM and what I'm getting at here is how do you how do you how does something like here net yeah yeah I don't believe a word

this piece of shit says Like honestly at this point, if you've seen Netanyahu's pending criminal trial that he keeps on putting off by declaring some fucking new war every week and committing all the acts of everything he's doing, including in Gaza, like, they have him dead to rights. All of his friends are on deposition. You can go look at these fucking tapes yourself where he is so very clearly guilty of all these bribery charges. And he's putting it off by creating wars and lying to his people and over and over. again and fucking literally gaslighting everyone into into buying him as like leader of this country so much so that we're sitting here talking about george sorrows who i think is a pretty reprehensible individual and i honestly like i'm inclined to be on george's side on this one that's how crazy things have got both things can be true at the same time i mean there was USA maybe like and this is part of the complication of it and part of the proxy war that's playing out in our own domestic politics like you can have corruption and you know and starting wars in order to postpone like criminal

trials and yet you have this a strong alliance with the trump government i mean this is and this is this foreign policy domestic affairs divide where you have like the maga base who i think did not want to get involved with like the strikes on iran for example course not and the netanyahu government started that i mean they did the sneak attack the while trump was trying to negotiate with iran about a second iran deal and then made it made trump go in and do the bombing which you wonder why right but this is but this is one of these things where the structure of the maga movement is in a very interesting place because neither side i don't neither faction within maga world can win without the support of the others i don't believe that may be true but there

there's now a giant dynamite that's been injected into middle of that with this whole Epstein file thing. Right. Right. And this is literally in the fact that it's, let's, let's bring, I'm about to pee myself, Mike. I'm sorry, let me just stop for one second and we'll bring it back so that you can run through all the Epstein file stuff right when we get back. Yeah. All right, everyone, we are back. So we've been going down a lot of great tangents here today. We spent a lot of time kind of connecting Epstein and the rise there. So let's let's come back to that. And there there were some thoughts I had earlier, but I didn't want to stop you. Adnick Khashoggi has been described in this research from Henry Abbott that backs us up that's

multi-source as the guy who taught Jeffrey Epstein a lot of what he knows. Adnick Khashoggi, as you pointed out earlier, was a very mysterious figure with insane ties to Saudi Arabia, was one of the most, if not the most prolific arms dealer of all time. Anyone I've talked to from government, from agencies has talked about the fact that his flow chart is, I mean, it's everywhere, and he's been dead for a while now. But, you know, Epstein's strange in that in the 1980s is a very mysterious time for him. He has the Towers financial thing blow up that he just was able to get out the back door, no questions asked.

Hoffenberg takes all the blame, runs around going, what the fuck, no one listens to him. And then when you get testimony from people, obviously he's meeting people in the 80s. He's running in these circles. He gets connected to Robert Maxwell, who's one of the most prolific spies of all. time, you know, and has all these connections, but he wasn't worth $450 million, not even close. He lived in a nice place on the Upper East Side, nothing crazy, nothing assentatious. I don't know what his net worth was offhand, but, you know, think somewhere in the area, 10 million, something like that. He's not this unbelievable, he's a wealthy guy, but not

unbelievable wealthy. Are you familiar with the podcasts that Tara Palmeri did on Maxwell and then on Epstein back in 2020? I don't think I'm familiar with the podcast. Okay. Well, Tara doesn't get enough credit for this. They were the two, they were investigative podcasts that were basically just not on camera, but she was running around recording everything like a documentary. And for my money, they were the best investigations that we have like in that content line on Epstein. And so in the Epstein podcast, she was going around with Virginia Roberts Schifrey, who she got very close to, who now passed on. And they would go to these people. who were, who Virginia was connected to through Epstein and try to go talk with them. And most people would like pretend like, oh, I can't talk to you, whatever, whatever. So they go to Juan Carlos, I forget his full name, but the guy who was essentially the house manager for Epstein across his properties, but particularly New York for years.

And he lived in a gated community now and said, yes, absolutely. I remember you, Virginia. Come on in. So Tara of Virginia go in there and he agrees to go on recording. anyone can go hear this and it was it was one of the wildest things i ever listened to because you simultaneously felt bad for the guy because you felt like he was put in a bad spot but also you're like dude how could you not have said anything and he's sitting there with a victim who also really liked him at the same time was a strange dynamic but he filled in a blank that i don't know

anyone's ever filled in this well with epstein he said you know Jeffrey he was working with geoffrey I think in the late 80s and he's like you know he had money but it was nothing crazy he said then in 1992 something crazy happened yeah and this is where his network starts to be valued at 450 million it's where the big mansion on east 71st street gets signed over to him in his name suddenly he got the private jet he was uh starting construction i believe on the florida house somewhere not in 1992 but shortly after the island came into play but in in 1992 he was like you listen to describe he's like shit was crazy right he went totally totally like nuts in the money he had and so you think about it all right financier there has to be

something else beyond that and beyond that skill that he's doing to put himself in that position and we see all the connections to lesley wexner who is directly connected to israel he was a guy that was sent on the fucking commission for the 60th with george w bush in 2008 to go celebrate this whole thing and it was never talked to anyone by the way since all the shit came out But, like, Jeffrey Epstein gets rich just months after Robert Maxwell dies on the back of his yacht and mysteriously leaves behind a $450 million pension scam at the Daily Mirror, which, listen, Robert Maxwell was a bad guy, but like he had all these businesses, the idea that he died destitute and had some four had needed to do a $450 million scam, which, by the way, his sons were fast. not guilty for when they were put on trial a couple years later it's like that makes no sense and then you look at the fact that Jeffrey Epstein just happened to have a net worth right in that ballpark right afterwards and then you take into account all the cameras he had everywhere everywhere he went and these connections

he had that over and over again somehow come back to Israel it is impossible to not look at this and say like how is this not a direct masad op that also involves blackmail beyond being a financier to be fair to massad and to israel all these places do this it may not be as as blatant as epstein got which by the way was his fault he got careless after 2002 and i'm glad he did because we know what a scumbag he is now but like he was always pretty private then that article comes out and then abundant then he does yeah exactly then he does all these other you know interviews with people and he loved the spotlight so he did himself in but like you know so many countries around the world use this type the espionage organizations use this type of disgusting disgusting racket for blackmail so when you look at at what's happening now with donald trump who was connected to the guy whether whether you like it or not he was connected to him for at least three decades there you know the way that he's reacting suddenly trying to say this is like an obama op or something like that i mean come on bro it's obviously some sort of cover because this same country that

that makes him go and bomb shit that his whole base doesn't want them to do you know is saying you know people people can't know about this and it's just so obvious to me that it it is impossible to not be pissed off by that and i'm not saying come out and do a press conference and say yep we did all of it whatever i'm a realist here i get it but like the insult to my intelligence and the level to which it's going inside the actual white house itself it is pretty fucking offensive yeah i think a lot of the base feels that way about uh you know, Trump's response to this. This is one of the first things I can think of that Trump has been subjected to the MAGA fury that was so helpful for him in so many other cases. You know, this is one of the strange bedfellows of politics side of it. You know, the Israelis and Saudis were bound into an alliance in the Middle East over the Iran deal in 2015. I think this is, I don't think Trump could have won president the first time without the support of Israel and Saudi Arabia over the Democrats and NATO opening up Iran and relieving

Iranian sanctions. I think the Lekud Party in Israel felt that there was a security. If Iran gets rich and 100x is their economy, they can deal with Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis when Iran was at its somewhat crippled economic state. But if Iran could purchase, you know, state-of-the-art military weapons and fund these networks, that that would be a security threat to Israel. And Saudi Arabia felt that Iran being able to export its oil and gas would destroy the, you know, the hegemony that Saudi Arabia has over that.

And so you had this Israeli-Saudi-Saudi alliance, coming back to this kind of Adnan, Khashoggi, Iran-Contra, you know, Saudi-Israeli alliance in that case. And these were the forces that have been, you know, in a huge part of the reason that we could even have the kind of, kind of domestic politics revolution in the United States. I mean, Saudi Arabia also helped finance the purchase of X, you know, for, for Elon. You see this very close alliance with MBS.

You saw, you know, Kushner, you know, negotiating the Abraham Accords over the Middle East. And there's, you know, what's tough about Trump's response about this is we've been through so much with him and there's so much love built up. I mean, the BS indictments, they, if he hadn't read, he would be rotting away on Rikers Island until he dies. I mean, he was facing a thousand years in prison. He got shot in the face. And, you know, for this to be the thing that it looks like, you know, he's kind of jumping on

when he's normally very transparent about, you know, when the pussy tape dropped. You know, he just, he owned it. Now I'm unshackled. It's transparent by everything else. Right. But the Epstein thing, I think, just gets to. I mean, the power of Trump to survive so much of this is that he's got a lot of friends and a lot of backers and has known people for, I mean, he was an international celebrity in his 30s and he's now, what, like 80. And a lot of that ran through the networks around Epstein and not necessarily on the, like, I don't focus on the blackmail side of it for a couple of reasons.

And I'm not denying that it happened. But I think that the path to transparency on this is by getting answers about the parts of it that are more traditional than I think the American people are aware of. Like I don't think that most people even know the stories like Mark Rich and Bruce Rappaport and, you know, Adnan Khashoggi type figures who are outside financiers who are simply cooperative contacts in these operations. and that, I mean, you look at all of the statecraft that has to get negotiated in the Middle East. And you're talking about all these countries who, you know, hate each other on one thing, but do business with each other on another. And that all has to be juiced in the background. And then the U.S. government doesn't want to look like it's necessarily favoring one party

or striking a deal with one. They want it to happen on its own. And I think with the Epstein story, you know, it's more. More in the influencer binders. I had a birthday party earlier this month. And someone brought the influencer binder, the phase one, to my birthday party. But I was thumbing through it,

and you can see Trump's on the flight logs. Donald J. Trump, you know, his name is on the flight logs. I think this is in the 1990s. And, you know, this was 12 years or so before he was indicted, before Epstein was indicted. I think Trump kicked Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club or something. Yeah, in a pretty high profile way.

But the fact is, is the Trump financial network and the Trump International Diplomacy Network is tied to this same Iran-Contra network. I mean, all the way down from the cabinet picks to the campaign donors, to the personal friends. And I think Trump's defense on this is, I think what he said is context. if we want we don't want to disclose the names because they'll be taken out of context because everyone will associate it as being blackmail like if you did business with abstein you were probably in on the blackmail network or you knew about it and so you look the other way then don't talk about it and call out bill clinton for it for the last fucking decade and then promise your base that you're going to release it when you know the whole time damn well you weren't because by the way bill o're riley who is shot out at this point he he actually like outed Trump, I guess by accident here, by saying that he talked to Trump back on St. Patrick's Day, man to man, eye to eye, looked him in the eyes and said, how can you not release this? He said, Bill, people would be guilty. And yet Trump still continued to say after that date publicly that

they were going to release the files. He never planned on doing it. And people are in a strange position right now. Now, it's different. Someone in your seat, you're an analyst, very open about where you stand and what you believe. Like, in my seat in independent media, my job, whether I like it not is in situations like this to be a journalist. This is why when I go and I vote, I vote for journalist abstain. That's what I write into every single position. Because I never want to be in a position where you put yourself behind someone because, you know, you're like, well, this is what the moment's saying. You get caught up in it. And then when they do all the opposite of what you actually think they're going to do or something like that, now you got to be like, oh, shit, that's, you know,

not what I voted for. Right. It's like, we got to cover all these people the same. And right now, there's just no way for me to cut it where it's like you can defend any way that Donald Trump has handled this situation, be it from a transparency perspective, be it from the perspective of fire, of having all the people at the FBI that he was trying to clean up, sending in a thousand person team or whatever it was to flag the name Trump anytime and redact that. Like this is every accusation is projection, man. And it works both ways. And I've seen this over and over again from these two points. parties, this uniparty system where they fight in public and divide every society to distract from all the shit they're going to do around the world that, you know, people won't pay attention of that. And it feels like that's happening again in front of our eyes. Well, who do you see from the MaguPays defending it? I mean, I've been on X and in media interviews calling for more and more transparent. I've seen the specific things. I think Charlie Kirk has been doing that, which is I mean, he's done the opposite though, too. Like, well, I believe a direct line from him was, well,

I'm going to choose to trust our leaders or something, like Charlie, shut the fun. Well, but then he had me on the next day and did a full thing on it. I mean, I think what he wanted to do, and I'm not a mind reader, but I think that when there was a pledge of transparency, which was tenuous, there was probably a kind of calculus to try reward things moving in the right direction without overly focusing on it because there's so many other things, you know, that are happening at the same time. But I think that, I mean, you look at the TPUSA summit and they brought Tucker Carlson in who, you know, demanded transparency. They had, I mean, that's a hard thing to imagine TPUSA doing a few years ago. And I think that you've seen that. I mean, I've seen Megan Kelly, you know, come after this. I've seen I can't count all that many mega high level voices of the base who have allowed Trump to skate on this.

In fact, I think Trump is surprised and actually, you know, has made some gestures. I know that he said that he didn't, he sort of shot down the special prosecutor probe, but, you know, in theory, authorized the attempt to unseal the grand jury, you know, the files, which then I think the judge just rejected this week. But I don't think, I don't think the MAGA base is happy with it, and I think they're letting him know. And I think this is part of what is the crossroads we're at right now. now is that like the MAGA movement is filled with a lot of pit bull moms and a lot of like aggressive you know guys who don't let issues go um didn't let go of Hillary's health didn't let go of

you know the rush case and not letting go of Epstein I don't think that the MAGA base is going to let it go and you know one of the things that I've been trying to do on this is to go after very specific actionable disclosures, which are easy to do, but easy not to do if you were involved in a cover-up. This is one of the reasons that I've glommed on to things like the Alex Acosta transcript from the justice. I mean, that is just right down the hallway. You don't need to wait three weeks or 48 hours. You can just walk into the office, retrieve the transcript, and publish it for the American people.

And every day that's not done, suggests there's something in that transcript that stinks. or there's something in Bill Barr's traffic or the Office of CIA Office of General Counsel's traffic and shaping that investigation. And so, you know, there's a fine line where I think there's so much else that's happening that's, you know, this admin has moved a mile a minute in terms of so much on, you know,

we just working on the Department of Education, USAID just closed down, we're trying to resolve what's happening on the international side, there's um so i i feel what you're feeling there and i think that's what's made this unique is that so many people feel that and it's not getting i mean because someone has to write the story of this and if the justice department doesn't the internet will continue to do that and will continue to press them do you think trump likes getting asked at a press conference why haven't you out in the he's been snapping at that and i think that's what's driven him to try to um try to throw a

little bone here and there with the unsealing of the uh you know grand jury but then that turned up negative that was rejected i think there's only more pressure for more disclosures and the and every time trump deflects from that i think that will give that will probably emboldened more of his base to ask more and more questions about it until there's at least a good faith a show of good faith. I don't, there's something in the Epstein story that I don't think you're ever going to have anything close to full disclosure. But if you can, and very, I mean, look at, look at what happened with the church committee. Most people call the church committee a whitewash. There were so many things that were blocked. The entire MK Ultra file was shredded. But there was enough, there was enough

accountability that even though it's conjecture beyond the official file, we at least had a general sense of how bad things had gotten and then knowledge because we knew what was deleted, like Alex Acosta, 11 months of his official DOJ.gov emails were deleted when OPR went to investigate it. So, you know, questions like, you know, you can't. You can't subpoena the Israeli government. You can't subpoena Saudi intelligence. We, you know, you can't subpoena, you know, British intelligence or, you know, the French side of this. But you have our own intelligence agencies and you can start there. And you can say, what did they know?

John Ratcliffe is the head of the CIA. He was asked, when, when Pam Bondi was asked at the press conference whether or not Epstein was an intelligence asset, and Trump cut her off and said, you don't need to answer that? It's a very fishy thing to, you know, to stop from being answered. And then Pam Bondi said, I don't know. We're looking into it. We'll get back to you. John Rackcliffe was sitting right next to her at that cabinet meeting. Didn't say a word. I find it unbelievable that there would not have been a name trace done on Jeffrey Epstein in 2006,

the first time that he was indicted in 2019. What do you mean in name trace? Every time CIA, every mention of his name in traffic, Every time the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, you know, touches something. And there's, you know, the special economic activities, every financing for every activity that touched Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UK, France, where Epstein was in Africa, everything that touched Wexner, everything that touched Ahudu, Barack, everything that touched the bronze. family, dating back 40 years, I do not believe that there is no traffic inside our foreign intelligence that touched, that mentioned Epstein's name, mentioned his passport number, mentioned anything that he touched, and I don't believe that the CIA would unilaterally

pull that information without being forced to by the Attorney General. Who can compel that? it takes about two weeks to turn around a CIA name trace for a single individual and you will have every single time that Epstein was ever mentioned for the past 44 years where he was running through these Iran-Contra networks he was running through these Iraq gate networks he was right through building networks but we don't even know that they've asked and these are easy things not to do if someone's not up their butt demanding it but they're easy things to do. It's just one request. The OPR, it's, it's right down the hallway from

Pam Bondi's office. So I understand the size of the universe around the Epstein thing, but what I try to focus my ass are on the narrow things that are easy to do and that look horrible if you don't do them because of how easy they are. So this is why I've focused on sort of the narrower side of Epstein. And then what opens up from there, you know, the internet can take from All right. To be continued because you got a call to take. But yeah, there's still a lot on the bone there. It's, I agree with you. I don't think we're ever going to know anywhere near the full truth. But like even something just to know what direction some of it was would be helpful. So I am rooting for that to happen. I just am very cynical about any of that happening. But Mike Benz, everyone can follow you on X on YouTube as well. Links down below. We did previous episode as well together. I think that was episode 309. so people can check that out. We'll have that link down below. But fire hose, as always, man, really enjoyed it today.

Likewise. Thanks. All right, everybody else, you know what it is? Give it a thought. Get back to me. Peace. Thank you guys for watching the episode. If you haven't already, please hit that subscribe button and smash that like button on the video.

They're both a huge help. And if you would like to follow me on Instagram and X, those links are in my description below.