MTracey podcast - It's raining Epstein Files. Hallelujah

Episode Date: February 7, 2026

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netThe wait is over. Buckle your seatbelts. Here’s our discussion of the massive new Epstein Files release.

Remember when we disappeared when Ukraine, we took the northeast of the country, and people thought that we had died in shame? I don't remember you disappearing, but I do remember in early September of 2022, I took one of my intermittent reprieves from the internet slash X. I do it a couple times a year, and it was so funny. I was suspended at the time, remember? I got suspended for you. Oh, yeah, yeah, I think I do remember that.

We were suspended at the same time, and we didn't post for a few days each other. I was never, I was never suspended. Yeah, I know. It was voluntary for me. It was a voluntary break for me. And it was just, it was so funny because, like, when I came back a couple days later, I was inundated with accusations that I was so ashamed of my underappreciation of Ukraine's military prowess that I was slinking away and maybe even killing myself because I just could not handle the new military reality.

And it was something similar this time. I mean, look, I don't know why this makes people go so crazy. Every now and then, I'm off the internet for like maybe three or four days. Like, I wasn't really that long. And I got swarmed, swamped with people whom I both know personally and also, obviously, thousands of strangers are reprimanding me. reprimanding me for being absent and assuming

that it must be because I'm just so overwhelmed by the enormity of the Epstein files and how they proved me so catastrophically wrong that I just I can't show my face on X um so that was sort of music

do you take breaks like I don't think in the last five years I've got maybe two three days without tweeting um maybe that's sad but yeah if I'm gone for five days like you were Yeah, people should check up on me because that's not something that I do normally. Okay.

I mean, I don't really plan it out that much in advance or have like a big theory behind it. It's just that I've noticed if I observe my own behavior, I don't know, two to three times a year, I will take some sort of... Okay, well, you deserve it. We're happy for you. I will admit that I played during that time a bit too much. of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom, which I put off playing for several years. I got dangerously obsessed with Zelda Breath of the Wild,

and I almost didn't even really want to play the sequel because I was fearful of how it would consume me. But I think I'm a little bit more calibrated in my enjoyment of this. So I've noticed, like, the last few days, like this is this abstinent file, they came out. It used to be like a lot of right wingers and a lot of crazy people being like,

oh, you're a pedophile. But I've noticed like a lot more like mainstream, like not just crazy left with people, but mainstream left with people getting really, it's not like it used to feel like they were just kind of going through the motions because to call Trump a hypocrite or whatever. It used to feel like that.

But now it's like they really like Zianjolani. People like this are just really tankery. Have you known? You noticed an uptick and left-wingers who are, like, genuinely angry about Epstein? So the latest production of quote-unquote files came out last Friday, so a week ago, today. And that Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, I really wasn't looking at my main feeds or any of the kind of mainstream sort of tidbits of coverage of whatever they claimed the revelations were.

So when I finally did emerge, I sincerely asked people, okay, since everybody seems to be so convinced that I've been proven so stunningly and devastatingly wrong, can you summarize a couple of the supposed revelations that, make this point or that established my wrongness. And I got what I would have probably predicted that I would have gotten, which was a handful of decontextualized, salacious seeming at first blush email excerpts,

which, of course, are not typically actual evidence of anything. It's just, oh, here was a possibly creepy turn of phrase, or even like a formatting error where somebody was emailing EPSY and saying, hey, we have a beautiful Brazilian nine-year-old ready for you or something to that effect. And then if you look at an alternate version of that same file, because like for each email, there's like several different documents and they're all, and they're like formatted differently. So in the correctly formatted version, it was, you know,

we have a beautiful 19-year-old who's like some aspiring model from Brazil who's going to be sent. Not, I don't even know if it was to him or whatever. maybe his modeling enterprise, but it was stuff like that, which is expected because in the absence of any legitimate evidence, what do people increasingly feel like they're consigned to do? Latch on to these, like, possibly opaque-seeming emails that they can then ascribe this salacious inferential meaning to, because that's all they've got.

So that was the kind of stuff that I saw being circulated when I finally did log back on someone belatedly. But in terms of the left-wing people being especially angry about it, I don't know, I haven't really noticed that. I have noticed something on the right,

which is... They forgot about Trump. They forgot about the whole Trump angle. Yeah, well... They're back. They're really... Yeah, kind of. I just think that there's a...

stark contrast between the reaction in February 2026 versus like July of 2025 when it really first burst on the scene in this renewed way because there was this assumption of some sinister cover up after that infamous memo on July 6 saying no client list, no blackmail, no predicate for prosecutions of any additional co-conspirators, et cetera. That was when you saw like an actual, like at least in the online. sphere, which is, you know, not really representative of all that much, I don't think, and can be over extrapolated to, like, represent the Maga Base, or there's always some kind of fissure in the Maga base that people somehow discover by scrolling through their 4-U feed or something, and, like,

a handful of podcasters are taking a slightly counterintuitive or oppositional to Trump's style take. Now, it seems like there's, like, kind of a growing consensus based on what I can observe and tell me if you've seen this, along people who are kind of pro-Trump, maybe more mainline right-wing. So they probably dabble

in some conspiracy stuff, but they're not fully engrossed in it, where it seems much more common now for there to be a forceful skepticism toward the whole Epstein issue at this point. Whereas, like, in July, it's almost like I was the only person

I knew of, like literally, who had almost any kind of skeptical take on, like the underlying premises for why this was supposedly such a blockbuster controversy. Now it seems like people were kind of, they've settled into more of a partisan, um, crouch. So like there's a,

like I did this podcast, uh, maybe two weeks ago with this guy, what's his name? Patrick something or other. he's like a right wing pro-Trump guy is he's a Patrick Casey yeah Patrick Casey that's right

and he wanted to talk to me about Epstein I don't think he and he's obviously he's still very like his political engagement is still guided I as far as I could tell by supporting the Trump administration and I doubt that somebody of that

inclination would have had me on to talk about Epstein like last summer. Now he sort of perceives an opening and partially it could be because of like good faith investigation of the issue. But there's like more of a political opening at least in these online right spheres to be dismissive or even like harshly so

about the Epstein story in a way that I felt like I was very much alone in in the past. But in terms of the left, I don't know, give me some examples of people other than than Zedd, who's always... I don't know. Maybe I'm thinking of Zayladi. Maybe I'm just... I'm over-indexing. I mean, he always trolls me in particular, so maybe you're over-interpreting.

He says weird things like, oh, this Richard Haddadi guy is really brilliant, but has serious mental problems. He's always giving me these backhanded, mixed compliments. Yeah, you know, I've always had, like, a little bit of a love-hate, sort of dynamic with him, meaning I... I think I've met him a couple times in person in D. like years ago.

And like I've always sort of been an online acquaintance, friendly acquaintance of his, but he gets into this trolling mode where on a particular issue, he's just impossible to reason with. So he, for months and months and months,

he would troll me about World War II back when that was my big, my big tangent. And now on Epstein, like you just can't even fathom engaging rationally about it. You ever have an interaction with John Gans? He was very upset also about my FC takes. Oh, was he?

Yeah. He seems upset about everything. He's upset about everything. He's always upset. He seems very bitter and sullen. Yeah, he seems like an unhappy guy. But he's fighting fascism, that word. And never I've interacted with him, it's just like him saying,

you fucking suck, bro. You fucking suck. That's basically all he ever says to me. He can write pretty well. He can write these kind of long pieces. But, yeah, sometimes he thinks you're not. I've read some stuff by him, and it's like decently well-written. It's just he's so unpleasant to ever interact with in my experience.

And didn't he have a book, didn't he have a book like on the 90s or something A few years ago that was pretty well received? When the clock broke, it was not even in the 90s. It was like 1990 and 1991. It was like the year of David Duke and like Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign.

There was, I guess the idea was, the Roddy Kig riots. He just went through like month by month of those two years. Did you read it? I did. Yeah, it was good. It was interesting. Yeah, I mean, he wouldn't be the first writer

to be, you know, a good writer and also have a very cantankerous person. Although we don't see that many of them in. People are too nice these days. You don't see many of these, you know, professional. I could be cantankerous, but I feel like I'm not just like, just recreationally abusive to people just because I think it's funny. Yeah, I don't, like, I wouldn't get why you would just curse it someone.

Like, you're not making a point. You would just say, you know, F you. Like, I would not do that because that is not contributing yet. He's one of those people, I think, who decided I was evil around, like, 2016 and 2017 because I was anti-anty-Trump. And therefore enabling fascism because I didn't necessarily think that, you know, Don Jr. had colluded with WikiLeaks or something. So anyways, this is all, there's, like, so yeah, maybe it's just, maybe it's just those two. I don't know. Maybe I'm talking too much about it. There's this other guy. It doesn't matter.

I actually did check blue sky, which I do, I don't know, every two or three months. I checked it today and they seem pretty angry over there. Eric. So, like, the only things I paid attention to, it's all these, like, out-of-context stuff, there's funny ones, like, there's, there's, so Peter Attia, it was like some, did you see him? Yeah, I saw his big apology. That's just pathetic. These people are pathetic. Larry Summers, there's more embarrassing stuff about him, like, being attracted to a woman, like, you know, this is the crime of the century. What else is there? Like, what are they even? Was there Larry Summer stuff? See, like I haven't been filtered.

Because I have a very, I have like a niche, I have some niche interest in terms of the stuff that I would seek out. And I have been going through a lot of the files, obviously. But it's probably not the headline sort of little salacious, ephemeral stuff. Like, oh, here's a photo of some woman with her face blotted out and all black arbitrarily. And she's with, I don't know, Sergey Bruin,

whatever that guy's name is, the Google founder or somebody. And that's supposed to be. Yeah, the Melania director. Do you see the Melania director? Yeah, Brett Radner. And they said, who's this woman with their facebangers? It's my fiance.

They're just luring out every woman. And then every man who's with every woman is like he's with some kind of, you know, victim of sex trafficking. I mean, I try to warn people about this stuff well in advance, but no one listens. I mean, this is what the DOJ had said in court filings, in letters to the court and in motions and so forth in the Southern District of New York for almost two months where they're saying that, you know, in the interest of their supreme priority,

which is to ensure the privacy interests of victims are protected, they are going to go above and beyond in terms of the redaction criteria, and also they were going to incorporate the so-called victim's lawyers into their evaluation process. so that there's like maximum effort and maximum redactions. Now, I think it's been a bit of a mixed bag in that respect because I have found like just full-fledged victim names, quote-unquote victim names that are actually available in the search bar.

And that was also to some extent the case for the first round of the productions in late December. But then on the other hand, you have, you know, some of these fonds, that are just like block after block of total redaction. So I don't know how streamlined really the process was. The DOJ, which is absurd unto itself, said that like 500 lawyers, including from the National Security Division and from other departments had all been delegated,

taken off their ordinary duties, and assigned to the Epstein Files' redaction meet. And they spent like six months. Like Todd Blanche and the Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney in New York said, oh, everybody was working 24-7 throughout Hanukkah and Christmas and New Year's to make sure we could get this done. So I think there's definitely some excessive redactions in line with what the DOJ said it was going to do, but it's not a foolproof system because there's just so many files and so many duplicates. But yeah, Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, repeated this.

absurd criterion for redaction when he announced that the absc the the this trance was coming out last Friday he said literally every woman will have presumptively their face redacted with the exception of gillet maxwell it's just like i'm sorry sometimes i feel like i have enough empathy where i can understand where people are coming from but like if you seriously think that's a rational standard to determine what public records to conceal and what public records to disclose, there's just something wrong with you. Like you're not thinking rationally. Any woman, really?

So no investigation whatsoever as to whether there's even a claim of victimhood. Are they're like grandmas? Are there like 70-year-old women in the photos? I would be interested if they do it by age. Like if you're a old woman, like they don't, you know, if you're in your 20s or 30s, you're a child, but if you're like 60, they show your face. Well, in December, it was the same protocol seemingly applied, but I think there were photos of like Tina Turner and stuff that were not redacted.

Yeah, like famous people, but I don't know. There could be famous people who are redacted. Like, why? Blanche explicitly said, explicitly said literally every woman will be redacted. Did you see the, the video where Epstein is chasing around like either one or two little girls and they're, they have black box like over the little girls and they're following them around

and Epstein's just like chasing them around, like playing with them and people are like, oh my God, look at the horrors. And it's like anyone black with children, you could just block them out and just release them like he's some kind of monster. People just don't want

to understand on some fundamental level that there's never been any evidence that Epstein had pedophilic sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Yeah, or he trafficked women to anyone. There's zero evidence of any of this. No, but I'm saying you see these photos

and these little videos come out where there is an actual child that Epstein is interacting with. Like there was a photo last month that got recirculated. It was actually from 2021 where this girl was probably, I don't know, nine or ten years old

is sitting on his lap and they're like kind of, you know, playfully sort of cuddling, I guess you could say. That's his. like that's his granddaughter, sorry, goddaughter, if I'm not mistaken. And her mother, Eva Dubin, was literally in the photo in the background.

No, she's also, because the, yeah. But, like, if you're, if you're going to ascribe something like genuinely predatory to him interacting with genuine children, then you could only do so if you're

just a hundred, like, like aggressively ignorant, of what his sexual proclivities were, which unfortunately I've had to study pretty in depth, and that's just like, that's not what he was into. So, but what's all the schoolgirls uniforms he bought on Amazon in 2019? I don't know if that's true,

but there's, you know, there's innocent explanations, potentially of that. Yeah, the, the, do you know who that guy is, by the way, who were arguing with, who was talking about you liking a young girl, that Ricardo Dujan's guy or whatever his name is? Do you know who he is? I looked into him briefly. He seems like some all right guy who got fired from some Canadian.

Yeah, like a white nationalist kind of professor who... University of New Brunswick, sociology professor, who was too based for Canada, and he got thrown out of academia. Yeah, it was funny to watch it pop up, yeah, arguing with you. But he admitted that he was like, he just said something that was just like capriciously defamatory. and that there was no basis for him to claim that I had posted that I personally have a depraved sexual attraction to, quote, underage females.

Because, like, I just have never said anything to, like, I don't talk about that. Why would I talk about, even if I did have some depraved sexual attraction, like, I would just start tweeting about that? They are. Yeah. Which I don't, people. It's just stupid.

It's just getting dumber and duster. It's like the more evidence that comes out, the more like Epstein's life that you look at, the more that there's like nothing there, the more ridiculous it becomes, have you seen the, have you been keeping up with the, so this stuff was all released because of the statute? Is that what happened? The statute we used to talk about? Yeah, the Epstein files transparency act passed in November. The 30th deadline was supposed to be for December 19th, but then they took like an extra five weeks to get everything ready. Yeah. The, yeah, so it wasn't there a case where like they accidentally released it and tried to stop it and then released it again? Is it something like that happened? In December there was a like the thing that everybody was so freaked out about was that there was a photo of Trump.

There was a photo where from like Epstein's living rooms or something where there was like a photo book open and you could see a photo of Trump with some. with some women at some, I don't know, bikini party or whatever. Yeah. And that was removed, and they claimed that it was removed not to protect Trump, but because they had to evaluate whether the bikini girls needed to have their faces redacted. And I think they actually decided in that case that they didn't have to redact those faces. Yeah.

But was there another one from this latest round? No, I thought they dropped, I thought there was some kind of mistake. I don't know. I might have been. Well, I mean, it's amazing. So it makes sense why they would do that, right? Because it's next to Donald Trump. And so if her face is blacked out, they're going to be like, oh, Trump is with a trafficking

victim. They're obviously thinking about probably how it reflects on Trump every step of the way. Yeah. And that's what the Democrats did on the House Oversight Committee when they released their own batch of Epstein files or records that they had gotten through a subpoena to the Epstein estate. Some of the ones in this DOJ production are duplicative of the ones that had already come out in September, October, November

from the Epstein estate because I guess the DOJ also had possession of the Epstein estate materials, even though I think they had kind of not acknowledged that before. I'm not 100% sure exactly. What is the... What's the... Have you wanted to pay attention to the Elon thing?

Because from what I've seen, I've just looked at a few emails here and there. I haven't finished follow the whole chain. I don't care enough, but it seems like Elon was like trying to hang out with Epstein and, like, Epstein didn't seem not to want to hang out with them or they ghosted each other a few times. Okay, so that's an exception to the right-wing reaction I was sketching out before, where I was saying that maybe people are more comfortable settling into this, like,

partisan posture where because Epstein is now so commingled with a political bludgeon that the Democrats are using against Trump and, like, the stuff that CNN obsesses with, that some of these more kind of somewhat mainline still generally Trump supportive people are more free to take an antagonistic attitude toward the whole issue. But I guess Elon Musk must be an exception. So I don't think he hadn't talked about Epstein in months ever since he infamously had his big breakup with Trump

and then posted that Trump was in the Epstein files and that's not why they're coming out from like when was that May or something. I haven't seen him really talk about the issue all that much recently, but no, no, he was talking about after this. He was saying, I know, but he started it up again. Which is weird because he's kind of, yeah, he's, he's in there. This Brian Johnson guy also was like just lying. You know, Elon, I hate the people who lie about it. So Johnson and Elon were the two big liars who basically were saying, and Elon's worse because he's saying people should go to jail. Basically, you know, saying they had enough to do with Epstein when it turns out they were emailing

Epstein all the time. Not, you know, again, that doesn't matter in like its own way, but these people are just very, very dishonestown. Wait, so wait, what was the lie? The lie was that Elon denied he had ever emailed Epstein? He's, I don't, I don't know if he's denied he ever emailed Epstein, but it's like he's, yeah, maybe Deland did it specifically lie. Brian Johnson lied.

Was it ever, was it ever determined? Oh, who Johnson, Brian Johnson? Not the, not the age, age guy. Yeah, that guy. Oh, really? Okay. That guy. Yeah, yeah.

That history speaks guy had a threat on it. Okay. So, but on Wednesday, Musk tweets a, he retweeds a meme saying, it says the official Jeffrey Epstein pedophile arrest counter, it's at zero. It's supposed to be so damning of us all that that number is still stuck at zero. And he says, in his tweet, needs to be above zero. So he's calling for arrests of whom?

I don't know. I asked him. It's time to decide us because it's like he's lying. I mean that there's something in there that's criminal. And I guess maybe he's not lying about himself. Maybe he thinks he himself should be arrested. I guess that's consistent with. I don't know.

I mean, can we say for sure that he's lying? Because he seems to be a pretty dedicated peddoh panic peddler for a number of years now, who probably did believe some of these most maximalist theories. Yeah, he's brain damaged. Yeah, you're probably right about Elon. And because he happened to be in the news, because there were these little emails of him and Epstein, I guess he's trying to take the heat off himself saying, go after the real pedos, which or who,

Bill Clinton, I mean, that's just what the standard... Yeah, what is the Clinton thing? Are they going to testify, Bill and Hillary? Like, this is kind of like, you know, this is a new law to, like, call a former president and over, like, literally nothing. Yeah, so, I mean, think of how amazing that is. No president has testified before Congress,

since Gerald Ford did so voluntarily, shortly after he assumed off as his president for Nixon after Nixon's resignation because he thought that it was prudent given the extraordinary circumstances to describe his thought process and his reasoning for the pardon of Nixon in a setting before Congress

and he had also just been the House Majority Leader before being nominated as Vice President by Nixon the year before. So he had like a connection to the House but it really never happens. Maybe I'm actually, hold on a second. There could be one more recent example of something like fairly anodyne. Like it wasn't a controversial issue, but yeah, I mean, the Republicans have gone balls to the wall.

And because the Democrats don't want to undercut their own argument against Trump, like a critical mass of them on the House Oversight Committee voted with the Republicans to approve the content. attempt resolution against the Clinton. So they've been doing negotiations where they, I guess they come up with some sort of resolution. And I just saw Bill Clinton's official ex account was tweeting today, look, fine, but we'll do the, we'll do a testimony, but it's got to be a public hearing, which I, you know, I think would be preferring.