MTracey podcast - All I want for Christmas is Epstein

Episode Date: December 24, 2025

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netI’ve spent the last 24 hours consuming an unhealthy amount of Epstein Files. Tis the season to be Jeffrey.

I need to know that now with everyone I speak to. I'm still not sure that I really know what that is, nor do I care enough to know what it is to actually look into the definition. Heritage American, my understanding has always been, you know, like, I don't know, the Mayflower people or the earliest settlers of America during, like, the American Revolution, is that right?

So the colonialists? I think so. I've never read their literature. I'm sure they have a very scholarly body of work to fighting their term. but I've never read it. I know about daughters of the American Revolution and groups like that. And every now and then,

like, you'll meet somebody who at least claims that they can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower or Jamestown or something like that. But no, I'm, I'm only a heritage American if you will concede that

the heritage of America began around 1900. So Ellis Island. So Eric Schmidt, I guess is trying to be, he's a senator, Republican senator from, Missouri's tried to be like the intellectual

of the Heritage American crowd and he gave a speech at National Conservatives I don't know if he said the word Heritage American but he's like you know we are a people blah blah blah blah you know you're you're like you set up this hierarchy I don't remember exactly how he'd get it but he's like someone came over

in like the 18th century some Germans came over in like the 19th century and I guess it's a spectrum I suppose so it just means like white people who have been here for a decent yeah yeah I don't think in 1900, the people who are into the identity of heritage American would have considered, like, the Prussian hordes to be heritage Americans, right? Yeah, yeah.

And they give it, they also, like, some of them, you know, they're trying to be intellectual, those like, blacks and Native Americans, too. Anyways, it's a, yeah, it's very stupid. It's basically their way of arguing against permissive immigration policy. Yes, that's that you, you've gotten it. That's like the payoff. Like they don't want, I don't know, they don't want like Heritage American meetings. They all go back to that, what was it,

1966 immigration law? That was the 66? I think it was 65. Hartzeg. Yeah, that was the downfall of America. We've never recovered because we upset our pristine demographic balance by letting in non-European,

European immigrants in large numbers. You know the interesting thing about that? It was the first one that put limits on Latin America. Before that, I think, let me look this up with chat, GVT. This is actually true, that anyone from Latin America could just march over. Although that's not true because, let's see. I just heard that Theo Vaughn, I don't know why I listened to. There was something, some clip popped up for me on my YouTube algorithm of Theo Vaughn.

Who was he talking to? I think he was talking to actually Joaquin Phoenix. That's why I listened to it. Okay. And he said that his father, maybe it was some other episode, but he said that his father was actually from Nicaragua. And his father was born in 1910. So, and I think immigrated as a child or a young adult.

So it wasn't in one of like the major waves necessarily of immigration from Latin America. It was just a relatively industrious person who I think was more like Caucasian leaning, like to the extent that that's a subset of the population. population of Nicaragua. Just somebody who was industrious who was able to come just without a huge sort of program in place.

In a period where people don't associate with immigration from Central America. So yeah, that's chat GPD's right. So before 65, there were no limits on land American migrants. I don't know if there were, I don't know if there was a path to citizenship either. It was mostly China that people really want to

restructure. Well, they had they had numerical quotas before 65 on the entire eastern hemisphere. So there were numerical quotas from like every country based on the demographics of the... There was a bill in the 1920s that made immigration

based on the demographics of the country of 1900. So if like 60% of the country or whatever was English, then like 60% of immigrants had to be British. That was a numerical quote. It was like that.

And so basically you kept all non-like... And that's also the period where like all the major intellectuals in the country were either eugenicists or like eugenics, eugenics curious or it was like a mainstream worldview, right? So that probably is the times

that you yearn for if you could go and I look out my window every day. If you could turn back the clock, if you were born in the wrong era. Anyways, so the Epstein. We'll get to Epstein, but just like, if people are curious, I am, I personally always find myself

relatively apathetic or even agnostic toward immigration questions because I recognize that there are people in the country. I have, my fellowmen, let's say, among them are people who feel very strongly about what the correct demographic balance of the country should be

and whether immigration should be more restrictive or permissive policy-wise. And I just honestly don't find myself that exercised about it one way or another. It's just not something that animates from the core of my being. So it's one of those issues where I'm willing to just kind of concede

to like whatever the pluralistic consensus is at any given time. So long as it doesn't come accompanied with like absurd penal colonies in El Salvador or like ridiculous infringements on civil liberties, which has often been the case

with the second Trump administration. Okay, fair enough. So anyways, the Epstein thing, it's basically, I'm going to be like, I'm sure you spent all day looking at this. I've been in a total manic haze. By the way, is it true? So somebody, there was a TikTok video where they were copy and pasting.

Did you try this yourself? Like the, they copy and paste the PDF file into a word? Okay, I tried that. It's one particular file. But it does work. They did not format the redaction properly. So if you copy and paste over the redaction, you get the full text. but it wasn't even that revelatory, really.

It was just part of a lawsuit. Now, it's still somewhat interesting. One file means what? Like one PDF or like a group of PDFs? Yeah, like one PDF file, essentially. It wasn't any of the major stuff. It was essentially, it was like a, it was one of the lawsuits against the executor

of Epstein's estate more or less. So, I mean, It does prove that these redactions are overwhelmingly just totally arbitrary because it wasn't. So here's what they redacted. One of the things that they redacted was Indyke, that's a guy's name, signed foundation account checks for over $400,000 made payable to young female models and actresses, including a former Russian model who received over $380,000 through monthly payments of $8,000. So they redacted, including a former Russian model.

Because I guess that would be too identifying of somebody who's presumed to be a victim. Because remember, the criteria that even the DOJ now says that it's using to determine which records to redact is that any woman must be presumed a victim and therefore must be redacted. So this guy, Jay Clayton, who Trump appointed, I guess, the interim U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, he sent. a letter to Judge Engelmeyer in the Southern District of New York the day that the statutory Epstein files first started to be released last Friday and said that, or maybe it was the following day, but in the past few days, he said that out of the highest abundance of caution, any facial image, that was the term, facial image of any woman is presumptively redacted. Even if there's no grounds whatsoever to believe in any way that this woman was ever victimized by anything.

And prior to that, their criteria was any victim, quote unquote, who simply identifies themselves as a victim either directly to the DOJ, through a lawyer, through a victim advocacy group, through some other channel, that's sufficient for their identifying information to them be redacted. So the standards keep getting even more lax in terms of what supposedly justifies a redaction here. And then you see people get all up in a, up and outrage about how expansive and excessive these redactions are. And yet, none of them want to ponder how much of that might have to do with this obsession with protecting anybody who could be were ever remotely construed at some sort of victim,

as though that wasn't going to inevitably lead to a huge universe of quote-unquote Epstein files being redacted. That's what I wrote to Judge Berman, warning exactly about, and nobody listens. Yeah, okay, so there are so many things that, like, people are posting online, and then they turn out to be, like, nonsense. So there was this one, I love this, where Epstein, supposedly Epstein,

sent a letter to Larry Nassar. Larry Nassar was this gymnastics coach like of the U.S. Olympic team who like... I think people probably know who in L.R. Nassar is. That was a pretty good. He was a few years ago now. Yeah, he wasn't just any gymnastics coach. He was the USA gymnastics coach, meaning the Olympic team.

Not a coach. He was a doctor. A trainer. So, yeah. Doctor trainer. Yeah, I was reading the kind of coach, actually. I was, yeah, I was reading the Wikipedia page about him And then, yeah, he would like, it seems like this guy was guilty.

It doesn't seem like, uh, did you not follow that at the time. I did. I just, I just kind of forgot. Yeah. I just, uh, that was, you know, there's, there's some, there's some relation there to the Epstein story, even apart from this spoof letter, which was clearly spoof. Yeah, yeah. The letter, let's tell people the letter.

The letter is like, uh, Larry Nasser, like, it's actually worded pretty funny. Uh, and there were some, uh, right-wing people who were, um, yeah, a Lincoln project. You know, he says basically our president shares, when a beauty walked by, he loved to grab snatch, talking about Trump to Larry Nasser. If you know by now, I have taken the short route home. Good luck. We should, we shared one thing. You love and care for, you love and care for young ladies and the hope they'd reach their full potential. Our president also shares our love of young, new bile girls. When a young beauty, I'm trying to read his curse of walk by. He would love to grab snatch

and ended up snatching grump in the best hall of the system. Life is unfair. Yours, Jeffrey, James, so if people aren't aware, Larry Nasser was accused and admitted to. He confessed.

He's sort of one of these anomalous, notorious sex offender types who, to my knowledge, and you looked more into this today than I did to, you refresh your memory. To my knowledge, he outright confessed to the crime.

And what he did was, he would tell these younger, these girls, yeah, you know, girls who do gymnastics are often, you know, quite young,

because like the best gymnasts tend to be, like, basically adolescence. Those, they're the ones, like, if you see like a Belarusian

who wins the silver medal or something in the Olympic, she's often like, I don't know, 14, 15, 16 somewhere. in that range maybe 17. But he would convince these girls on the USA gymnastics squad

that he, to stretch their muscles or to like relieve some tensions build up in them from doing gymnastics, he would have to do some kind of like vaginal maneuver on them. Right. That apparently had like no medical basis. Yeah. Well, I never looked into this.

I wonder what his defense was. Maybe he had an expert. He had no. Yeah, he had done. He didn't try to. So at the end, he admitted it, but I think he might, you know, he was trying to get leniency.

Did he go to trial or was he just No, I think he pleaded guilty, right? He pleaded guilty. Yeah, he got life in prison. I don't know like what they would have given him then. He, yeah, and then they searched his home and found like... November 22nd, 19... November 22nd, 2017, Nassar pleaded guilty.

Yeah, yeah. But I wonder why, because he basically got an effect of life sentence. So I wonder, like, what, you know, he couldn't have got a death penalty. So they must have negotiated something with him. Do, does Michigan have the death penalty? Well, they wouldn't give it for this, though, that nobody gets death penalty for sexual assault. I think, you know, he probably could have made the same. Yeah, but it's not a, but it has to be a law. There was a, first of all, this was a, this was a constitutional issue.

Somebody raped a little girl, and it made it wait at the Supreme Court. And maybe this Supreme Court would actually overrule this if this went back to the Supreme Court. But they basically found that just for raping kids, death penalty is like cruel and unusual punishment. So the Supreme Court wouldn't allow it. And then Michigan would have to, they would have to want to want to. challenge the Supreme Court. It would have to be on the books already, which I doubt, I doubt that it is. I was reading recently, actually, that Louisiana used to have a law that permitted the death penalty for sex crimes against children that did not result in death. And then the dissentist, like, passed one in one of his, you know, one of his, one of his publicity

stunts. And so, like, if that ever, like, happens, then it would, yeah, it would be, it would be, something like that. But I don't think it's ever been, it's never been carried out. And it would have to, like, go to the Supreme Court. They would have to argue. that it's inconsistent with a Supreme Court press. Has anyone been put, yeah, 2023 now, I'm just seeing this. Yeah, yeah, no, nobody has. Does anyone but it's probably unconstitutional? But, you know, this Supreme Court might rule differently.

The Supreme Court is a lot more conservative than it used to be. But anyways, yeah, so this was... The thing, the interesting connection, though, or morbid connection between the Nassar case and the Epsin case, even though this letter was clearly a spoof. I mean, it struck me as something that, like, a sardonic left-wing, like, podcaster might have done. Or maybe Jeffrey Epstein himself because he's a funny guy

he likes jokes. Yeah, he had a good sense of humor. But after Nazar pleaded guilty, the judge in the trial allowed for this incredibly elaborate, emotional, intense

victim impact statement session where, you know, families of victims could come and make statements. So not even the victims themselves. She kind of broadened the criteria for who could actually make one of these so-called victim impact statements, which I find constitutionally dubious to begin with.

But it was a whole circus. I mean, do you remember that there was one of the old fathers lunged at Nassar? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I do remember that. Yeah, yeah. And this phenomenon of victim impact statements also played a role, has played a role in the Epstein and Maxwell saga. So, wait a minute. If it's traumatizing to the girls, like, if they fought,

it was a medical exam or a medical kind of treatment. Like telling them that it's not is like the thing that would traumatize them, right? If they just thought it was medicine, they would have been... I would want to refresh my memory on some of the details before I opined to confidently. But, you know, in principle,

if they had this procedure done to them or this, I don't know, maneuver or whatever you call it, and they thought nothing of it. They thought that it was just something to stretch out there. I don't know. What would you call that area of the female body? Maybe I'm anatomically ignorant. But not the vagina.

It's like the surrounding muscles or something. No, but, yeah. But if they perceived or if they experienced no, like, immediate harm from it, and the harm only comes retrospectively when they're told it was actually abusive or molestation, then that is an interesting ethical conundrum, actually. Yeah, yeah, because some of them, their parents were in the roof. Like, the parents were sitting there and they were just doing it, and they weren't like, oh, my God, stop.

And then later, they must have been like, yeah, yeah, it came out. And it was kind of weird. Like, Symbol Biles, like, defended him at first publicly and then later said she was a victim. So there was this kind of like some of this weird obscene stuff, but this is not like Epstein that there's like a lot more a lot more evidence in this case. Okay, so yeah, so people thought this

was, so it was postmarked after Epstein died, right? So it was these files, so this ends up in the Epstein files. It was sent from Northern Virginia where Epstein was not incarcerated in Northern Virginia. Yeah, and so why is this in the Epstein? Because it goes to

Larry Nasser and then it doesn't, it doesn't get to Larry Nosser or no? Well, just because it has the name Jeffrey Epstein on it. The D.O.D. The D.O.D. throws in everything. They throw in tips that they get sent by, like, crazy people who, you know, send them CDs full of, like, supposed evidence. Anything that, I guess, relates to Jeffrey Epstein, and they're just dumping into this, no matter the actual, like, veracity of the underlying material.

That's how this video came out. Did you see that? It was like, I get some kind of AI video. Yeah, I saw that. I clicked out of this. This has been deleted. So you deleted. right after but I did see I did I did delete it because um first of all I put a typo in that

tweet because I was trying to express like incredulity that it was actually real because there was never any indication that there was any video equipment set up inside Epstein cell but like for a split second it seems like plausible enough to me because like why else would the DOJ be publishing this right they wouldn't should be publishing like outright fabrications or parodies but apparently um they they are just publishing every everything and everything, including like a spoof letter that somebody sent that then got reported. I mean, I think this, I think why this letter was in, like, the archive or whatever is because it came to the attention of somebody in the FBI for them, you know, after the fact, like a year

later for them to look into to determine whether it determines its providence, right, or to just to investigate. So that's why there was, like, sort of a, like, an incident report filed on it. So yeah, I'm sure there's plenty of other kind of phony stuff like that as well. Yeah. So this one is the funny one that's really getting the making the rounds. So it's like, here, I'm looking at it. Blank asked Blank about his time driving a limousy for two years in the Dallas-Fordworth area.

During Blank's time as a driver, he had met Donald Trump. Blank noted he picked the president up in 1985 and took him to the DFW airport. Blank reported some of the- 95, I think it was. Yeah, what I said. Yeah, 995. Blank reported some of the things Trump had spoken about during the ride, while on his cell phone were very concerning. Blank reported he was, quote, a few seconds from pulling the limousine over on the media, and within a few seconds of pulling him out of the car and hurting him due to some of the things he was saying, as caller chose not to.

As caller chose not to. Okay. I mean this is hard to decipher because the redactions are so excessive, but yeah, fundamentally what this guy is saying is that. Let me finish. Trump. Blank noted Trump continuously stated the name Jeffrey while on the phone and made references to abusing some girl. That's how we talk. Hey, Jeffrey. Is that it fun when we abuse some girl? We had a great time last week and abusing that girl. Plank was unsure he was talking to nor who he was referencing. As Blake talked about his time meeting Donald Trump.

Blake, immediate blank's demeanor went stone cold. As Blake stated, he raped me. Wait, so he was talking to a different person? I think there was a woman there was a woman who they referenced whose name is also redacted, so you can't really even make it out. But like, apparently this woman, like once he brought up Trump to this woman, the woman said that it just so happens. Trump and Epstein both raped her. Yeah. Yeah. And then she said, and then he says that this woman who claimed to have been raped by Epstein and Trump, you know, in tandem, like a gang rape, I guess, 25 years before or however long.

also just happened to have been murdered and had her head blown off because, and he felt that was something to do with a cover-up involving Galeigh Maxwell and Mexican drug cartels.