MTracey podcast - SURPRISE! "The Young Turks" are CLUELESS about Epstein!

Episode Date: February 18, 2026

I happened to come across Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of “The Young Turks” discussing my appearance this week on the Piers Morgan show, and predictably, they wasted no time rattling off a slew bogus assertions, one after the next, with such sublime and unshakeable confidence. As is so often the case, the pair have just unthinkably absorbed this whole weird Epstein mythos — the actual evidentiary basis for which they’ve clearly never bothered to check. Instead, they just instinctively assume every little mythological datapoint to be true. Most of which is probably derived from social media or Netflix.So I figured what the heck, I’ll produce my own dumb little commentary video cataloguing their various errors and misapprehensions. There’s not much surprising here; Cenk and Ana’s factual follies are thoroughly typical — almost banally so. I could spend 24/7 correcting bogus Epstein coverage across the political and media spectrum, and never even get through 1% of it. But at least this particular example happens to be pegged to me, Michael Tracey, so I thought hey, why not give it a whirl. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

All right, hello there. So I just happened to come across a video or a video was served to me in my algorithmic slot feed of the Young Turks discussing my appearance this week on Peers Morgan. So that was Jank and Anna analyzing that appearance, which I guess has gone somewhat viral. I don't know exactly how to quantify that anymore. But I was technically employed by the Young Turks. at one point between 2017 and 2018. And that's just an interesting little wrinkle of my own personal history. But I did go through with it and watch this video of Jenk and Anna discussing the appearance.

And I think it's worth just kind of going through for a moment in terms of the claims that are made because it's pretty emblematic of how people. I guess don't really ever bother to do even the slight of hint of research before just making confident fact claims about things. And, you know, if I wanted to refute every overconfident but false fact claim that's made about the Epstein story, I would spend nothing, but I would do nothing over the course of a day, but that. And I would only ever scratch the surface, like less than one percent of it. But this just happened to do involve me. So, hey, I thought would do it, but I want to just go through this video. And hopefully it's illustrative of a lot of the fallacies that are so pervasive on this story.

So I'm going to screen share and hopefully see that. So that has my, I watch, it has my recommended videos there with my Richard Nixon interviews that I like to watch. Anyway, let's begin. Being paid by someone in power who does not like these accusations that have been made against them. And I think it's fair to ask, are you being paid by any of the men who've been accused by Jeffrey Epstein? Wow. Today's installment of the Pierce Morgan Show. Yeah, wow.

I mean, just to give everybody context before we proceed any further, of course, I am not being paid by anybody. affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein, any Epstein co-conspirators. I mean, this is just sheer lunacy. And it was this sleazy diversionary tactic that was employed by Tara Palmieri because she couldn't respond to a single thing that I said on the merits. She couldn't actually defend her own journalistic output, which is a disgrace, as is she individually. And so what does she do? She asked me this dramatic, accusatory pretty, you know, quintessentially McCarthy-style question, have you now or have you ever, are you now or have you ever been paid by anybody affiliated with Epstein or in the Epstein files? I mean, of course the answer is no, as I told her.

And of course, the answer is that I'm paid by people who subscribe to me on substack and whatnot. But just the question itself is all that really needs to be expressed to make the point that I guess you wanted to make, which was to try to tarnish me in some way as being motivated by some personal corruption or something foul or sexually depraved. That's all these people can really ever resort to. In my experience, so anyway. First Morgan, uncensored, if you will, did go off the rails as Michael Tracy got into a bit of a spat with Tara Paul Mary about the reality of the Epstein files, or at least what the Epstein files have revealed to the public. Now, for whatever reason, Michael Tracy does not believe.

believe that the revelations that we've all learned about and all read for ourselves exist. Okay. So again, just to, I have to just even now address that one introductory sentence. I don't believe any revelations exist. Okay, which revelations, right? Are you talking about these scattershot snippets of emails that people want to read as signifying some kind of pedophilic trafficking conspiracy, like the pizza and grape soda emails, are those the revelations you're referring to? Like, which revelation in particular of child sex criminality implicating some prominent individual who has otherwise gotten away with it is Anna Casparian thinking of here?

Like, we need to get a little bit more specific on this stuff rather than just speaking in abstractions and then accusing me of not accepting the reality of those abstractions. Because in fact, I mean, I have gone through a lot of the Epstein files and there are some revelations. But they're just not that revelations that go in the direction that these people want them to go in. So one of the revelations, as I've discussed, is that this number of total victims that has been bannied about the media and that is repeated ad nauseum by members of both political parties, that they're over a thousand victims.

sometimes they even upgrade the number to like thousands of victims. This number is just government propaganda. It's total trash. We now know the genesis for it as revealed in a revelation contained in the Epstein files, which is that they made up this phony number by including alleged victims and also their family members. And we don't even know which family members, the FBI and DOJ, apparently included in this total of, quote, over a thousand victims that were, quote, harmed by Jeffrey Epstein. So, I mean, I've been asking, are they saying that Jeffrey Epstein

went around raping all these alleged victims, fathers, and uncles? So that's a revelation that is legitimate that I freely acknowledge, and there are many more we could get into. So it's not a matter of me just denying flatly that there are any revelations in these files. I don't even know what she's talking about. So that's kind of at the heart of this spat that I'm going to show you the highlights of in just a minute. But before I do, Jenk. I mean, we got former TYT versus kind of current TYT. That's kind of interesting. Do you stand by your former hiring?

What is kind of current TYT mean? I mean, is TARIPA now affiliated with the Young Turks? I had no idea about that. And if that's true, I mean, I guess I don't even care. I don't know. So I'm just say that because I don't know what he's even talking about exactly. During decisions. Well, so Michael's an interesting cat.

As you're going to see here, I have a different theory as to why Michael is saying absurd things. So first we'll show you the... Like, you don't need a theory. I mean, I'm very open with expressing why it is that I say and write the things that I do about Jeffrey Ashley. There's no hidden theory that needs to be uncovered, really. I'd be happy to talk about it with Jank, obviously, or Anna, or anybody. I mean, I've been on 10 billion podcasts, including in very adversarial formats at times, talking about this from every angle that people wish to talk about it from. So this idea that there's some like ulterior motive or some deep psychological motive that people have to theorize is just sort of foolish.

Sure of things and I'll tell you why I think he's saying them. And then of course we'll get into who's right. Now look, I do think that there's been a little bit of extrapolation or moral panic. So for instance, when you look, gee, you think? Look at the Epstein files. Some of those documents are FBI files where they're taking in calls. where people are making accusations. And I see that a lot of people take those accusations as gospel and you shouldn't do that. Okay. So when we can agree on that, I'll give you one example of this happening. So, of course, because the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the production of all records that relate to Jeffrey Epstein and or Galane Maxwell, that encompasses reports to the FBI

by random mentally ill cranks, who, for example, alleged that, they found out about some rape that Donald Trump committed in Oklahoma, and then the rape victim was murdered, had her head blown off, and then the same guy claims that he also cracked the case of the Oklahoma City bombing, and it's just like a delusional antasmogoria, to use a fun term. And it's just nonsense, but the FBI intake agent obviously still, memorializes this report without conferring it with any veracity, obviously.

But then people see these records produced and it seems like it's an official looking document. So they assume this must be like, wow, a really important and significant and truth-containing Epstein file. And then it gets blasted around social media. And people are just totally brainless dupes on this stuff. So then they regurgitated as though they've been told some deep, profound, shocking revelation. and members of Congress are no better, apparently, than your average, you know, dopey social media user because Ted Liu repeated at the Pam Bondi hearing

at the House Judiciary Committee last week, this very same report, this like crank report about some Oklahoma kidnapping and rape and Oklahoma City bombing, you know, conspiracy uncovering. So, yeah, there is a lot of that, Anna. We can agree. Right, because some people did call in and make insane allegations and there's no no evidence of those more outlandish allegations.

So I want to just be clear about that because I do see people making that mistake. So just be careful with what you're reading and don't, you know, assume that all of the allegations are 100% true. Yeah, 100%. In fact, in a little bit, I'll give you order of credibility for what you're reading and how to determine it. And I'll say, look, Michael had this interesting moment here where he had trouble with his earpiece at a very inopportune time. But I actually believe him. So, Lee, let's give you the video. Oh, look at you.

Okay. Well, gee, thanks. I mean, why would I have lied about that? It's so stupid. Why would I lie about some kind of problem with my audio feed only to then address the question that was posed to me, the instant that I could hear it, about 30 seconds later. and then unequivocally deny that I am being paid by any malfeasant Epstein associates. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. I'm glad that they have enough, like, baseline recognition of like my not just being a total insane,

you know, liar that they would acknowledge that I wouldn't just have made that up for no reason. But I guess it's a pretty low bar. At the beginning of this episode, Morgan interviewed David Boyce. And if you're unfamiliar with who that is. Fact check, it wasn't at the beginning. We were on the panel for about 10 or 15 minutes. I think we're on 10 minutes. So myself, Tara Palmeri, Mike Benz, and John Curiaku.

Benz and Curiakou, like I did nothing of note, really. I don't even know why they were on the panel. here yaku just gave his standard pointless speculation about some kind of Mossad access agent as being what Jeffrey Epstein was which like addressed nothing of substance in terms of what has come out in the recent Epstein files or just like indicated no

unique insight whatsoever into any aspect of this case so I don't know I guess people think he's like a cool guest to have on because he was in the CIA and then was in prison or whatever it was just totally pointless. And then Ben's, I mean, I can't even track what his thesis even is supposed to be on Epstein. He peddles a lot of nonsense. People say that he would be the most credible, like, counterpart to me to debate if I wanted to be, if I were to debate a Epstein maximalist. Of course, I'm happy to do it, but, you know, he just said really nothing that was noteworthy in this panel except for some tangent about JFK assassination. But anyway, Boyes was brought in like in about 10 minutes, after about 10 minutes of this panel at that point was just me and Tara. And then Peers had Boys address me sort of in absentia.

And Boys gave his defense of his indefensible conduct and his representation of Virginia Roberts Koufrey. He also represented hoaxsters and admitted hoaxers like Sarah Ransom who admitted that she made up that she had in her possession sex tapes featuring Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Richard Branson, and that she had sent these sex tapes to undisclosed locations in Europe for safekeeping and that she was reaching out to the Moscow police and just quote the Russians writ large to help her. And like she's gotten increasingly more openly mentally ill where she's sending off these like all caps emails to world leaders like Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin, Kirst Darmer, Mohammed bin Salman. asking her to be put in charge of mediating the Israel-Palestine conflict and also the Ukraine war.

I mean, this is just an insane person, like literally mentally and well. In some level, you have to feel badly for her. But on the other hand, David Boyes elevated her as a very significant name plaintiff in much of the litigation that he brought over the course of the Zepstein story that propelled the mythology. And also, she got millions of dollars tax and tax-free settlement money. she got a book deal Sarah Ransom did. And all the while, when she finally had to give a deposition and I guess retained some modicum of sanity for like at least a couple of hours, she acknowledged that she was a 21 or 22 year old adult escort effectively when she first encountered Epstein. That's how she made her living in New York City.

So, and she's basically a person from whom much of the, you know, false, notions about the island in the U.S. Virgin Islands being rape island or pedophile island. A lot of that, if not all of it, originates from Sarah Ransom. And she's a crazy person who, on top of that, was an adult at the time of her claim victimization. And the idea that she was raped is just sort of also silly. If you look at how she described her encounter on a massage table with Jeffrey Epstein, where she says that she was consensually given an orgasm by him.

So anyway, I mean, I wish I didn't have to get into these kind of details. but that's David boys. So he comes in about 10 minutes after the panel starts. So just so you know. He's the person, the lawyer who represented Virginia Jufre. And her case was against Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor. Used to be referred to as Prince Andrew, but he's been very bad. I'm still referring to him as Prince Andrew.

I don't care. I do not recognize the rescission of his princely title by his brother. His feckless brother, King Charles, who just capitulates at a moment's notice to any mass hysteria, obviously. So if people don't like my continuing to refer to him as Prince Andrew, then sue me under British libel law. And then I will invoke the First Amendment and continue referring to him as Prince Andrew. His title stripped from him. Now, Tracy has repeatedly accused Virginia Joufrey of fabricating her story. And more broadly, I haven't just, it's not just me accused.

her. Again, she recanted her claim. So there's no accusation needed by Michael Tracy to simply observe these repeated recantations. I mentioned only three of them in the short amount of time that I had with Tara Palmeri on Pierce Morgan, which is obviously, number one, Dershowitz. That's the one that maybe most people are aware of where she made these graphic claims of sexual abuse or child sex abuse that she accused Dershowitz of inflicting on her on at least six or seven separate occasions. And described them all in David graphic detail, described Dershowitz as body parts, his sexual preferences, his ejaculations, et cetera.

And then she made these allegations under deposition. And in sworn affidavits. which in theory could subject her to perjury charges, but of course nobody's going to bring such charges or no prosecutor would bring such charges in this climate. But then after about eight years of these false allegations hanging out there and tarnishing Dershowitz, who might have plenty of other discreetments with,

but nonetheless, he was like as vindicated as anybody could possibly be who maintains their innocence when false charges are leveled at them. after about eight years or more of this hanging out there, Virginia Roberts Koufrey recants in a statement that was organized by her lawyers, David Boyes and Bradley Edwards at all. And I know people want to say, oh, well, there's some plausible deniability in the wording of the statement. Yeah, there's plausible deniability because that's how lawyers love to weasel word

their statements on things, where the exact wording is, she, quote, may have made a mistake in identifying during her. I mean, give me a break. You may have made a mistake in identifying someone that you vividly and graphically claimed raped you on six or seven separate occasions and that you swore to under oath and under pountly of perjury in depositions and affidavits. And on top of that, you know, I also mentioned in this Pierce Morgan interview or Pierce Morgan segment, she recanted claims against Stephen Costlin, who's a Harvard professor. she recanted her, who she claimed she had intercourse with in her fictionalized memoir

that she presented as nonfiction initially, but that her lawyers eventually had to admit after discovery that it was a fictionalized account of her purported experiences. Then she had, when that admission was finally pried out of her and her team of extortionist lawyers, she then also recanted the accusation against Cosselin. and she recanted her accusations also, and I didn't know this until relatively recently, for all the voluminous information

that I've been saturated with on this subject, I only found out, I only realized if in like December, when I was looking more into the John Luke Brunel aspect of this and looking into more of the French media coverage, and none of this has really penetrated, the U.S. media coverage, but like it was reported in the French media.

And unfortunately, the French investigative files are not as accessible, just given the French laws and structures of governance. But lo and behold, she had to confess that she made up stuff, made up her claims against or made false claims against John Luke Brunel, too, when she was finally summoned to testify against him in Paris, or provide evidence against him in Paris in 2021. And, you know, maybe I'm probably write more about that at some point.

So I just gave three examples. So when she says, oh, Michael Tracy is accusing her a fact. fabricated. No, this comes from her and her own lawyers. Like, her own lawyers had to admit that she fictionalized her account of her purported victimization. She personally, through the lawyers, had to admit that she fabricated a bunch of stuff. And I just gave only three examples. I could give many more. Believe me. Like, she claimed that she saw Bill Clinton on the island. There's no evidence ever that Bill Clinton attended whenever went to the island. Pedophile Island or rape island.

Yeah, Bill Clinton did fly around on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet in 2002 and 2003 to Africa and then Southeast Asia to visit Clinton Foundation like philanthropic initiatives. That's true. But having gone to the island, no, no evidence ever. Bill Clinton has always denied it. Epstein himself denied it. Maxwell has denied it. You could say that, oh, maybe Bill Clinton nonetheless still went,

even though we have zero evidence ever, despite like the amazing volume of, material and the incredibly intense investigation that's been done on this stuff. Nonetheless, he still could have gone to the island. Okay, then like nothing can ever disabuse you of anything on this. So, the claims of fabrication are not just coming from me.

Just to be clear. Lee, he doesn't think that Epstein was doing any sex trafficking at all. Now, if you think that's crazy, there's no way he believes that. Okay. I wish these people would just quote me so we could be a little precise, any sex trafficking at all. I'm not sure what that even is supposed to refer to as to my position. The DOJ, the, you know, some of the new FC files that just came out, the Anna and is so excited about.

Contain a memo, and I referenced this in the Pierce Morgan show, in which prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are discussing their interview with Virginia Roberts Koufrey in 2019. and they find that her claims to ever have been, quote, sex traffic to anyone are groundless, uncorroborated. And not just that, they find that she had repeatedly lied. This is their own statement. This is somebody that they were desperate to have as a marquee witness, if they could, against Maxwell. They found that she had repeatedly lied, that she had lied to the media, that she had chronically sensationalized, they say. and then Maureen Comey, the lead prosecutor against both Epstein and Maxwell, and Diddy? But more relevantly here, Epstein and Maxwell, she's asked by Cash Patel to give like a summation of the investigatory history on this stuff after the second Trump administration comes in in January of 2025.

And then in March of 2025, she sends a lengthy memo or email where she says that she would have loved to have found over the course of her lengthy. lengthy investigation that any evidence that there was anybody to whom any children or even women have been sex traffic to some prominent third party individual whatever sex trafficking means exactly i mean as i've spoken about before it's an incredibly nebulous concept it just means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean on any given day it's like you go if you like somehow facilitate the ability of somebody to move from point a to point B and then like six months later if some sex acts happens, then you can somehow fit that into the rubric of trafficking.

But I don't want to get derailed on that subject, although there's plenty of to say. So, like, I don't know what she's talking about. Like, what sex trafficking is she referring to here? The Palm Beach phase in which girls came to Epstein's house.

And, like, one of his assistants would, like, call them up and say, hey, are you available on Wednesday? And they would say, yeah,

and then come over and then give the massage. And sometimes the massages would be sexualized to some degree. sometimes not actually, but like sometimes they would be sexualized and then they get, you know, two or $300 in cash, and then they would keep coming back and then invite their friends to come and their friends would come almost invariably. And then they would all get cash and they seem to have like a good time. They would hang out at the pool.

Literally, they would like, you know, have something to eat. I mean, they would like hang out at this place as like a friend group. Anyway, like what trafficking is she talking about that I'm refusing to acknowledge but she has this amazing insight into like maybe she could explain it to me. And then if I'm so horribly wrong about any aspect of this and the evidence shows me to be wrong, of course, I'm rational. I strive anyway to be open-minded and rational enough that I would change my view should the evidence call for it. But I'm not even sure what she's talking about because she just, again, is speaking in abstraction. Here he is.

You should hear it from the horse's mouth. You know what the file show us? that the government investigators who are on a war path at this point against Epstein and then Maxwell discovered no credible evidence of any pedophilic sex trafficking or any sex trafficking at all to any third party individuals, which was the crux of the mythology that Virginia Roberts Gouffray incubated that Tara Palmeri amplified so lamentably credulously. I'm going to let you take that one, Jake. Yeah, that's absurd.

What's absurd? Like, let's hear what, let's, I mean, I've watched this already, so I know that he doesn't do what I'm about to suggest he do if he wants to call this absurd. But like, if it's so obviously absurd, then he could like explain and with some specificity what I just said there that he objects to like factually. And of course he doesn't. Out of evidence. So look, some people are wondering, hey, is Michael Tracy running cover for Israel?

That's not my experience with him. He's well at least he got that right. No, I'm not a running cover for Israel. It's so stupid. I mean, if I'm actually a stooge of Israel or I'm being like paid by Israel or I have some like deep sinister alter, ulterior motive to, I don't know, boost Israel or advance the interests of Israel, then that would be news to Israel or that would be news to like the hardcore pro Israel people. Yeah, some of whom now are like more sympathetic with my take on Epstein stuff because it got so arbrily grafted. So, like, people's views on Epstein got so arbitrarily grafted onto their pre-existing views on Israel for, like, some absurd, nonsensical reason. But that's just, like, a circumstantial thing.

So at least he can acknowledge that I'm not motivated by supporting Israel. There's no reason why Israel has to be so overwhelmingly foregrounded as to its relevance to the Epstein story. Yeah, it's like a component you could talk about if you want. But the way people got so monomaniacly fixated on it on the Internet is just, just so arbitrary and distracts from what the real crux of it is. And the crux of the mythology, which has been so systematically dismantled as more and more information comes out. Just a natural born contrarian. If you tell him the sky is blue and the grass is green, he will argue till the end of time that they are not. Okay. So this is the kind of stuff that I was

told when, for example, I would occasionally go on this main Dunkirk show and debate like Russia Gate, Trump Mueller, Trump Russia collusion, the Mueller investigation and so forth. I didn't like work for the main show per se when I was employed by the Young Turks. It was like a separate division that I was technically involved in. But occasionally they would have me come on this main show. And like there was one sort of viral panel that was in maybe, when was it? February, March, April, 2017, something like that. I don't know if you use the word contrarian in that particular panel,

but that would be basically what I was being alleged to be guilty of, just pure arbitrary contrarianism. As though I would say, you know, if somebody told me the sky was blue, I would say the sky is green. Or like, I'm just like for its own sake wanting to just provoke or instigate or flout people's beliefs on things for no other reason that I'm a troll or I have some like weird psychological motive. Like it couldn't be based on.

my like genuine assessment of the evidence or my good faith journalistic inquiry like it always has to be some psychological thing that he he or others would impute to me and i've got this a 10 million times for 10 million different issues not just trump rusher pollution but um you know ukraine war uh you know i guess maybe to some extent with israel although i don't know i mean it's sort of like a little bit of in a different category um 2016 election for sure You know, when I was much more bullish on Trump's chance to win, and I was very critical of a bunch of the media coverage, hysteria, like fascism, hysteria, Nazi hysteria,

contrarianism, even in the 2024 presidential election when like all the dopey so-called anti-establishment podcasters were just Trump ass kissers and thought that he was going to, like, come in and heroically dislodge the deep state and all this whole crap. I guess maybe COVID stuff, not that I was like initially saying, oh, the whole, the virus is fake, you know, and this is all just a planned op or whatever. But, like, the government policy that was enacted around, like, vaccine passports and mandatory testing and all this stuff, I would talk about the civil liberties issue.

So, like, this is all just to say that there's been a million reasons why people have called it contrary about a million different subjects over the years. So, like, at a certain point, it's just, okay, it's just like, it's just an excuse to not engage on the substance and then, but rather diagnose some psychological, malady or disposition in me. So I'm used to it, but it is pretty tedious. Right. So like this is the most obvious case in the world. There's video cameras in every room. They're in the tissue boxes.

Gee, I wonder why they put video cameras. Okay, so he doesn't even know what he's talking about. Video cameras in every room. Like these guys are, think that these guys are, you know, trumpeting the Epstein files, but that they apparently don't look at them or they don't look at any that could contradict their preexisting notions about a pedo. sex trafficking operation or mass child rape atrocities. Maureen Comey in that memo says that, you know,

Takash Patel in March of 2025 says that they found no evidence of hidden cameras in any sensitive areas or areas where there would be, you would expect there to be some kind of sexual activity going on, like bedrooms or bathrooms. They found no footage, video footage or images of any sexual abuse at all. Now people are going to say, oh, it's Maureen Comey. She's corrupt. Okay.

I mean, this was in an internal communication. And this was somebody who stayed her career on successfully prosecuting Epstein and Maxwell. And I guarantee you she would have loved to prosecute additional conspirators if she possibly could have. If there was possibly evidence that would have warranted that. And it's not just Moran Comey saying this, but like in all these FBI and memoranda where they're going through like meticulously and forensically the evidentiary file, they say no. there's no evidence of this massive secret camera operation.

I don't know what he's talking about, tissue box. I mean, was there some tissue box somewhere? Maybe, I mean, there was, the one secret camera that we know did exist was one that Epstein installed on the recommendation and with the assistance of the Palm Beach police in 2003, after he was burglarized by his former house manager who stole cash and a handgun off his desk in the Palm Beach house. And so the police advised that he installed a hidden camera with an angle, on the desk.

Except with that video footage has come out, but nothing is, nothing sexually illicit is shown. So, I mean, look, if there's something that I missed about a tissue box, I'll happen, I'm happy to look into it, but like I know like that the main investigative conclusion that is made evident in all available files that I've seen from this latest round of records productions, is that this whole thing about the hidden cameras was a myth. And it mainly came from Virginia Roberts Goufrey, who just like claimed this.

and Maria Farmer, and also Sauer Ransom, which are three mentally ill women, or confabulating women, who sort of inculcated so much of this common mythology. So now we actually get the evidence, and it flatly dispels all this common mythology that came from three mentally ill women. So it shouldn't be that surprising, right? But, you know, of course, Chang would have no reason to know any of this. He would rather just, you know, feed the algorithmic slot machine

because it's very lucrative across the political spectrum. Young Turks, which is, I guess, is on the left to some degree. And then, you know, Dave Smith or all these right-wing slop accounts, they all converge on the same Epstein slop mythos. And they rake in the bucks in terms of the views and subscribers and whatever. I'm not saying that's consciously his motive, of just like feed the slop engine, but like if you don't recognize that as a hugely salient incentive, then you're delusional.

1,200 victims. There's descriptions. Okay, 1,200 victims. I mean, come on, Jank. Subscribe to the Epfaci's substack and then you'll be a little bit better informed because I did an article on this last week. I mean, I came across that Epstein file. Wow, big new, big breaking news.

Epstein files, everybody, you know, gather around. That number is a fiction. First of all, they initially claimed it was over 1,000 in the FBI DOJ memo of July 6, 2025. Okay, then that was repeated ad nauseum across the political spectrum. I mean, I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, and you've heard this before, you know, listeners, but like, I mean, the corrective, the correction for these myths just never seems to penetrate. It's a phony number.

It included the uncles and, you know, the family members of the purported victims. And by the way, even amongst the purported victims who would be a subset of that, over 1,000 number. I don't know where he's getting 1,200. I know Roqana has said that. I think the precise number that they put is like something 11, like 1100, 137. But it's a fiction.

It's government propaganda. So if like, hey, Jank, a little bit of advice for you. I mean, if you want to be mad about government propaganda coming out of the DOJ and FBI, like Hash Patel and Pampondi, be mad about this grossly inflated figure of quote-unquote victims. But even among that figure, right? even among the subset of that number that would actually be purported victims, but the vast majority, the majority, a significant majority,

based on everything I've been able to glean, would be adults at the time of their claim of victimization. I know I keep repeating that phrase a lot, but like it bears repeating, because these guys think it's a mass child rape crisis or a mass pedo panic that we all have to be running around with our hairs on fire about. But they don't actually look into the details.

They just say stuff. Emails of people going, I'll take a nine-year-old, a 10-year-old, an 11-year-year-old. No, no, no. There's no emails that could be reasonably read as anybody saying, I will, like, at a restaurant menu, I will take a nine-year-old, a 10-year-old at 11-old. I don't know what he's talking about. The 9-year-old, infamously, that I've seen, you know, fluttering around in terms of the email snippet was a formatting error. The 10-year-old and I don't know. I mean, I saw one email about a 10-year-old that, like, has no context maybe or maybe it was 11. And it was like, you know, in the middle, it was like September of 2016, I think, right?

And then there's, like, other emails about, like, Halloween costumes coming from, somebody and like you can't there's like a file attached the image file attached we don't know what's in the file we don't know what the sender was so if he thinks this is dispositive evidence of like 11 year old children being brutally sex traffic and enslaved and raped that he has no like rational standards for evaluating information because it's absurd and don't you know sorry i i know people get upset about this but like if you don't and if you don't want to know the reality then okay but like the reality based on all about available evidence is that Epstein never had a predilection toward pedophilic pathology,

meaning he did not have sexual attraction toward prepubescent children. He just didn't. Like, you could still say he did plenty of stuff that he might find objectionable or untoward or whatever. Fine. But in terms of pedophilia, no, that's just not a relevant factor here. The 10 and 11 year olds? No, Jank.

And look, I mean, if I'm wrong and like there's evidence that establishes that like there was an 11-year-old who was held in brutal sex trafficking captivity, I will acknowledge it. You know, I'm evidence-driven, but at this juncture, there just absolutely is not sufficient evidence to make any sort of statement like that. No, no trafficking, no pedophilia. I mean, and Leon, there's, you know, Leon Black, according to the allegations, doing vicious rapes.

Okay, Les Wexner called a coca spirit about FBI. Okay, so Leon Black, I mean, so there have been lawsuits that have been outstanding against Leon Black or in the public domain about Leon Black for several years prior to this latest round of Epstein files production. So, like, we didn't need the new Epstein files from the DOJ to know that there have been these allegations against Leon Black. One of them was from his adult, basically mistress that he was having an affair with that he paid off. And then she tried to meet to him. And then she sort of made a bunch of extreme claims and they were dismissed. So that was an adult not relevant. And then there was, like, somebody who claimed that they were 16 years old

and they were sexually raped or something something i read the lawsuit you know a few months ago so i don't have it all at the top of my mind right now but like if you go look at it it's like clearly the ravings of a delusional person as is often the case they claim that they're autistic and like i have some it's like hallucinatory i mean it's nowhere it's it's just simply not credible there's no new files that substantiates these allegations um it's just that so many people when they hear the name Leon Black and they associate it with Epstein and they're mentally ill and they have like reckless and unscrupulous lawyers you think they can extract some settlement from somebody, then that those allegations get put in some lawsuit somewhere. This has nothing to do with the new Epstein files.

I mean, maybe there's a reference to these outlandish allegations somewhere in the Epstein files that happened to not see, but we didn't need to the Epstein files to know that they had been made and also that they were resoundingly non-credible. And look, if there were credibility to some allegation against Leon Black, I would have no point. problem acknowledging that. I mean, I'm sure he did have this affair with this woman. He basically admitted it to being the adult woman. But the 16 year old who says, like, there was some, you know, graphic rape involving Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein when she was 16 and like autistic. I mean, you could go look at like some preliminary investigations that were done as to the veracity of those claims. And they all are just wildly nonsensical. So. But whatever, right? There is a massive.

of evidence, but no matter how much evidence you let's see it. I'm ready to join you in a trek through the mountain range, but you haven't named any. You give Michael, that makes him want to oppose it even more. It's crazy. I like I get the journalist's urge to maybe view things from a contrarian lens and be skeptical. Be skeptical of an official narrative of conventional wisdom. That is a good thing. Well, once you read, the documents for yourself, how do you still reach the conclusion that there was no human trafficking happening? Which documents? Let's talk about a specific document, Anna. Again, instead of just

gesturing vaguely at some unknown expansive documents that you think are so profoundly dispositive as to your theories of some kind of, I guess, mass scale, quote, trafficking, let's get down into of details. But I haven't heard one yet. And he, like, he's so over the top sometimes. Like he said, they were going on a warpath against Epstein. What warpath? When they caught him in 2008, they let, they gave him such a light sentence.

The sentence was, well, if you don't mind, come and use the jail as a hotel. Okay. So this just gets to his just basic lack of knowledge about the Epstein case. Yeah, he's doing second after segment, making the most incendiary. possible proclamations about it. I'm talking about 2019, Jank. It's entirely different phase than the 2008 scenario where he got a quote unquote sweetheart deal that people love to bloviate about. Even leaving aside this so-called sweetheart deal claim, I'm talking about 2019. This is after Epstein is deceased. He died in federal custody. Yeah. So if the government goes after somebody

and then they indict them on like multiple serious felonies and then they're put in prison and jail and they end up dead. I mean, I think we can say that they had gone after that person pretty aggressively. Right. They had already, you know, so, and then after Epstein's death, they then turned their attention to Maxwell as a surrogate for Epstein. And yeah, she too is then indicted and arrested and then put on trial and convicted. I would say wrongly convicted, but how can you not say that that was about a warpath against Epstein and Maxwell? Maxwell's been sitting in prison for her. five and a half years. She has 15 more to go,

according to the sentence. She was in brutal confinement conditions in the Brooklyn jail ahead of her trial. She was in this very unpleasant Tallahassee prison for a long period of time prior

to being moved to this lesser security or a slightly more lax prison facility in Texas in over the summer. Like she's still sitting in a federal prison facility. I don't want to hear the people. I don't, please don't tell me that being in a federal prison is akin to like staying at the four seasons.

This is so idiotic. If it's so amazing, then why don't you go vacation in a federal prison for a while and like, see how great the room services and like take a dip in the pool or, you know, enjoy the amenities. I mean, it's just idiotic. Free to go during the day because we know you have important work like raping our children. Jank, have you considered? Have you considered? Okay, so he's saying that in the 2008 scenario, because he's saying that the sentence was too lax, and Epstein, I guess, he's saying, got work release after spending,

after a few months of his, after a few months into his term of incarceration, so starting June 2008, he gets work release, sorry, starting June, yeah, starting June 2008, he then gets granted work release in October 2008, per the same terms that the Palm Beach County, sheriff's office, which is overseeing his incarceration, would grant to any inmate. And this is found, this is not me saying this.

This is found in all the reports that have been done through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and other entities. He's saying that Epstein was allowed to, you know, while he was incarcerated, go out, go around raping children. What is he talking about? There's never even an allegation of that. Okay. That's just made up.

I don't people like want to believe that. Again, people really, really want to believe. in mass child rape. I mean, I guess it's something that gives their life meaning or it makes them real excited. I mean, to me, it's pretty darkly perverse. No, no, Jank. There's never even been a serious claim, an allegation. Forget something that was proven.

There's never even been a serious, a credible allegation or even any allegation that I'm aware of, meaning like attached to a certain set of facts or, you know, details. But Epstein, like, going around. around while he was incarcerated and raping children. So like, what are you talking about? Again, join me in extricating yourself from this ridiculous mythology. So we can actually have a reality-based discussion about this issue for once. That Jeffrey Epstein wasn't happy with the sweetheart deal.

He thought that Dershowitz could have done better. Have you considered that? Oh, wait a minute. Okay, so a tiny amount of time, but only at night. And then Galane Maxwell is in the minimum security prison having the time. of real life yeah galane's having the time of her life in prison like if i want you know that's i had the time of my life and i owe it all to you like i guess that music video was filmed in a prison because when you think about having the time of your life everybody of course thinks

about you know kicking back and celebrating in prison like what are these people talking about it's preposterous because i'm sure in plenty of other contexts they would be be bemoaning you know justifiably enough, the depravities of the prison system and over-incarceration and, you know, I thought we were supposed to be skeptical of the punitive powers of the state, et cetera.

But now it's like a fun little holiday to go into prison. What's insane. But they're on a war path against poor Epstein and Maxwell. I mean, it's classic Michael Tracy, like, absurd contrarian nonsense. So after that, Pierce Morgan asked. Yeah, just like

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin colluded to subvert the 2016 election and get Trump installed as a Manchurian candidate to do Russia's bidding while in office and overturned the constitutional order. Because that's more or less what Chang's position was. He called me a contrarian for being skeptical of back during the first Trump administration. And the Epstein story is basically Russia Gate Part 2 in terms of being the primary oppositional narrative to Trump. Obviously, Epstein has a story or a narrative is not solely about an oppositional Trump thing. But that's obviously a big factor in the United States anyway. But okay. I'm quote

contrarian, fine. So let's not engage with anything I say on the merits. Paul Mary for comment. And remember, she's one of the like top reporters that's been following this story, reporting on it. Matik. Well, yeah, top reporter. What reporting has she done that is so top shelf, Anna? Explain to me. These are the podcast series that she journalistically and professionally collaborated on with Virginia Robert Guffray. Have you listened to it? I would love to see her amazing journalistic output that Anna is referring to.

That would be, I'm sure. Hout. Culously, if you ask me. But look, Tracy wasn't having it. So here's the clip. I don't know, Michael. Have you ever actually listened to any of this? The tapes at the Palm Beach, you know, the police in Palm Beach, the detective.

Have you listened to any of the girls that they interviewed that were as young 14? Yeah, and you think that they're not credible. I listened to it all, Tara. You don't think that entire pyramid scheme and in a high school in your life? Do you think Virginia Robescu Freight's credible? She had nothing to do with that initial Palm Beach investigation. We're talking about your former journalist, the collaborator, who had to recant allegations against Dershowitz, had to recant her allegations against Let her speak, please.

Let her speak. Let her speak. recanted against John Luke Brunel. So you defend the credit. Let her speak, you're all caught your mind. Your journalist and collaborator. Do you work? Do you work? Who do you work for, Michael? All right, it's time for New Year's resolutions.

We all make them, but I'm not making any big flashy resolutions that are going to spin together. It's genius and balancing filter macro-smanship about his favorite food items here. Let's look for it. I mean, that was disturbing. Oh my God. Oh my God. Okay, I had listened. to this episode, I hadn't watched the video of it. I got to say the look on everyone's face as he's talking is just like. So what, so the look on everybody's face, okay? I mean, I guess I hadn't noticed the look in everybody's face.

For Michael. So what looks are we talking about as I'm talking? Like, just, I mean, if Mike Ben, like, okay, like, I don't know, those look like pretty standard looks on their faces to me, but. I don't know, maybe I miss what she's referring to, but I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Benz and John Kiryaku are not familiar that Frigand to Roberts Koufrey, for example, were candidate or Clemskins against those three people. So if they have some strange look, I mean, I don't know what that's supposed to tell us.

Oh, my God. Okay, I had listened to this episode. I hadn't watched the video of it. I got to say the look on everyone's face as he's talking is just, like, John Kiracu is the guy in the middle. He's a former CIA agent. Yeah. Okay. Mike Benz is the other guy.

And he just has this blank look on his face because the exchange is absurd. It's totally absurd. Yeah, I do find a lot of people have blank looks on their face when they hear like actual credible information about the whole Jeffrey Epstein story. So I guess that's true. Assert. John can't believe it. What is that?

Who cares if she? All right. Anyways, keep going. All right. Yeah, who cares if she recanted all her signature claims that created the whole entire Epstein mythology and that formed the basis of webbecky. people think must have went on with that whole thing. Right here, who cares, Jank?

I agree. So when Tracy refers to Palmeri as Virginia Jouffre's journalistic collaborator, he's alluding to the fact that they once hosted a podcast together. But yeah, no, but Tara reported she's one of the top reporters on the Epstein five. No, I mean, I guess they didn't listen to the full second because I actually described maybe at greater length than I needed to the nature of that journalist's collaboration. It wasn't simply that Tara interviewed Virginia.

I made that distinction abundantly clear when I described it, was that they collaborated. They basically were shared a byline together. That's what made it so ridiculous and so discrediting for Tara, and that fatally undermined her credibility on any aspect of the story forever. So I don't know. How about learn like a couple of facts before you spout off on your YouTube channel. So what does she do?

she interviewed the victim. Unacceptable. Unacceptable. I don't do that. Journalism 101, what did you want her to do? So it's Journalism 101 to co-host and journalistly and professionally collaborate with somebody who was just like a total confabulated nightmare? Okay, if that's Journalism 101, then I don't know. Maybe that's an insight into what Jen conceives is like true and proper journalism.

Not interview the victims? In this case, maybe the answer is yes. So, how did... Interview the victims. I've tried to interview the board of the victims. They throw a fit. And they wind to Julie K. Brown. Claiming that I was harassing them.

Oh, I'm sorry, Annie Farmer. I know, you know, your millions of dollars in tax-free settlements for, quote, hand-holding offenses that you characterized as, quote, sexual abuse when you applied for your payout to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program. Hopefully, that is some kind of consolation. Do you have to endure the sexual abuse? quote, harassment of me politely asking you a question at a public event, a political advocacy event. And then you claiming that I was like guilty of journalistic rape or something.

But so I have interviewed, I have attempted to interview a bunch of them. She's not the only one, but like she was the one who was the most outlandishly hysterical. Respond to Tara Paul Mary's question, right? Like, are you getting paid by any like of Epstein's co-conspirators? Like, what's going on here? We should watch that moment because it was. awkward and Jank is going to potentially defend Michael Tracy. So take a look. Oh, gee, thanks. Are you being paid by any of the men who've been accused by Jeffrey Epstein?

So, I mean, I literally could not hear at all at this point. Like, it had gotten increasingly faint. I could pick up a word here or there very, very faintly. But I just couldn't hear at all at this point. Just so you know. I don't know why I would lie about that. Because again, the instant that I could actually hear the full question, I responded. directly and unequivocally. And by the way, as I tweeted to Pierce Morgan today, please feel free to ask the studio technician about the audio problem because he will verify it. I'm having trouble hearing right now.

I wish I could respond to whatever nonsense she just blurted out. I'm asking you if you have ever been paid by any of the men who have been accused of time. But maybe somebody can. Astonishing. An astonishing coincidence that you suddenly lost your hearing. when you were asked a very difficult question. Tara asked if you're... Yeah, I didn't just suddenly have a hearing problem,

like a physical ailment or a physical defect in my ears. The hearing problem was my ability to hear the audio feed, because the audio feed got screwed up. But anyway... ...being paid by anybody to smear the victims of the Epstein scandal. See, rather than defend the merits of her journalistic output, which she can't because it's indefensible, what does she do?

She tries to impugn me, personally tries to imply or you're not answer to the question of course I'm not being paid by anyone I'm paid by my readers on substack you idiot you just can't engage on the merits Tara you are disgrace you're going to be remembered as somebody who's integral in fomenting this moral panic and mass hysteria that's led to mass defamation like you just tried against me okay um there are rich and powerful men who have taken advantage of and in some cases preyed upon underage girls, some of whom actually. Okay, which men, which girls? Again, we never get down to the brass tacks here.

We're always talking in these really like heartfelt but yet conspicuously vague generalities. Most of whom came from disadvantaged backgrounds and they were preyed upon specifically because they came from poor families or broken homes. I mean, she's just conflating a bunch of stuff that I'm sure she heard on like the Netflix, you know, fictionalized version of all this or I don't know what she seems like she's conflating some of the stuff with like the Palm Beach girls with other trafficking. I mean, who knows anymore. It doesn't matter. I guess they can just give these like pontifications that are really, you know, stirring and emotional. And it would be harder for them to fight back.

Throughout many decades, our... I mean, what's that got to do with me being accused of having been paid by Epstein Cocosperator? I mean, do she, would Anna actually allow that that is a legitimate question to pose to me? Or like, there's nothing untoward about a question like that, meaning to impugn my motive and to depict me as some corrupt, you know, plant? I mean, of course, I answered the question, but like, what does it say about Tara that she would ask us a question?

Rather than respond on the merits, like a single thing that I put to her. Our government provided cover for those bad actors. That is a huge scam. Which bad actors do the government provide cover to? Like, if you're going to make these fact claims, then like what you should specify eventually what the basis is for your fact claims. But she doesn't feel the need to, I guess. Because, you know, keep the content turning out. And the fact that, look, I think it's bad enough that we're living in a country right now that's just,

moving about the day, business as usual, nothing to see here, that's bad enough. But to have a so-called reporter, add to it. Reporter, okay, so what are you? I mean, I call myself a journalist. People can agree with me or disagree with me, but I don't know how you can really dispute that I have at least produced journalism on this subject. So that was my whole impetus for engaging in the first place. and that was what I was trying to do over the course of that

Pierce Morgan's segment. So if she has like more impressive examples of reportage or journalistic output on the matter of Epstein or Maxwell or any other component of this that she liked to share with me or share with her audience, I'm happy to look into, but I'm not sure what the flamboyant scare quotes are supposed to signify other than you're just kind of like oblivious as so many other people are as to the actual facts and evidence,

which is a point I tried to get across. in the Pierce Morgan appearance. And then on top of that, deny reality is beyond infuriating. Here I am denying reality. I don't know why the wicked. I can't in my, but like, what reality have I denied? That da-da-da-da-da. Maybe I'll do a musical to try to get through to these people that we have to have

facts and evidence to have a reason, discussion. and then you can establish what reality you are claiming. I have denied. Because aside from the victims not getting the justice that they deserve, this whole story. Yeah, the victims haven't gotten justice. Millions of dollars, tax-free, settlement payouts from multiple settlement funds, free health care until 2020.

I mean, showered in accolades constantly by the media, access to politicians in Congress, anonymity, if they want it, having records removed at their direction, at the direction of their lawyers. So the public is deprived of the full transparency and disclosure that I thought was the whole point of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Netflix specials, Hulu, BBC, book deals, speaking gigs. What more justice do these people want or what do they owe? Explain it to us. you know, for, you know, having gone as a 17-year-old and being told by a 19-year-old

to lie about your age when you got to Jeffrey's house, and then you can, you know, strip down to your bra and provide a sexualized massage and collect $200 or $300 and then go to the mall afterwards, like, or you were like a 21-year-old model who flew down to the U.S. Virgin Islands on a private jet, all expenses paid, you know, sun bathed. Maybe Jeffrey might have called you in one night or maybe he didn't for a quote, massage, but, you know, and then 20 years later, you say, you say, you say, you say it's trafficking and you're like, you were held in some kind of brutal captivity as though like you were in a Thai sex dungeon. I mean, give me a break. This is like, just never

ceases to amaze. He says a lot about the society we live in, okay, about our leadership, about the power players in this country and across the globe. And I would prefer to not live in a world where disgusting pedophilic garbage gets to make decisions. Yeah, disgusting pedophilic garbage is what makes all the decisions in our society. Yeah, I totally, totally agree for sure. About the lives of all of us live. Yeah. So Michael's acting like someone who's on the wrong side of this. And I don't mean like as an opinion, but as in like Alan Dershowitz and all the other people

who cooperated with Epstein. But I don't... What is he even talking about? So not like an opinion, but like Dershowitz. So he's... What is he saying? So I'm cooperating with Jeffrey... Jeffrey Epstein, is he alive?

Like, is he in Jersey City with me right now? Like, again, what are these people even trying to say? They don't know what they're trying to say. They're not like tethered to any rational foundation for what they think they believe about any of this stuff. It's just like a constant stream of consciousness, you know, garbled nonsense. I don't think he is.

So, man, maybe I'm wrong. But is he acting that way? Oh, clearly. I mean, I had battled with him on Twitter the other day, and he was like, name, names, name, names. That's like what Dershowitz does. And then he just said mass defamation, just like Dershowitz does. So that Twitter exchange, if I'm recalling it correctly, was him saying, you know, the CIA, I mean, maybe I should pull it up.

Let's go through it. Why not, right? I mean, we're here. Do, do, do, do, do do do do. do, do jank, Uger, share this tab instead. Okay, so here it is. So this is Jenks saying, apparently there isn't all caps.

There isn't one patriot in the CIA. So I guess it's now like really jingoistic about the whole Epstein thing or something. They all knew Jeffrey, they all knew Epstein and his friends were raping American girls. Okay, who were the girls that were raped? they did not bring them to justice they allowed them to do it year after year knowing new girls would be raped CIA is compromised looks like massage is in charge okay brain fried I should do like the Patrick SpongeBob meme or you know where he's drooling and like there's like sparks

flying out of his you know deformed head I say W2F are you saying the CIA ought to have seized domestic police powers and arrested friends of Jeffrey Epstein seem to me that's what he was saying by clear implication, which friends in particular are you claiming are guilty of rape, such that they should have been renditioned by the CIA. Please be specific names, specific names. Are you nuts, he says. Do you think if the CIA knew there was Russian or Chinese spies

running a pedophile ring in America and using it to potentially blackmail our politicians and business leaders, the CIA is supposed to do nothing? No, they tell the FBI I'd have them arrested, obviously. Okay, pedophile ring? Again, another little fictional fictional sort of plank of the mythology here that he just states as fat because it's really exciting who in particular I ask are you saying the CIA I should have told the FBI to arrest for

pedophilic sex crimes please be specific names specific names he says Michael you don't have to disagree with what everyone else thinks every single time I don't know why you're choosing to be done serious Epstein and Maxwell were allowed to do this for decades the CI knew about him since Iran contra and judge to do nothing you could simply answer the question I said and specify who it is that you're claiming the FBI or CIA FBI should have had arrested for pedic felic sex crimes but you seem weirdly reluctant to answer the question Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell he says they didn't arrest them for decades why are you being purposefully obtuse do you think you're setting up some sort of debating trap or trying to

alert people into getting sued for naming names whatever whatever it is you're doing it's super weird and I say you initially says the CIA should have arrested unspecified friends of Jeffrey Epstein for raping American girls. So all these perpetrators of child rape were getting away Scott free when the CIA could have, I guess, intervened and had them renditioned and brought to some CIA black site in Egypt or Syria or somewhere. So I say, you know, the only people you're claiming ought to have been arrested are Epstein and Maxwell, both of whom were arrested? You know, Epstein twice in 2006, in 2019 and Maxwell in 2020. But because he said that there are all these friends, unspecified

friends of Epstein who the CIA led to get away with this mass rape conspiracy mass trial rape conspiracy. So if the only people that he thought ought to have been arrested that were not arrested are Epstein and Maxwell and like what is what? It just doesn't make any sense.

Oh, I shouldn't have ended the chair screen. Let me continue. Like he wants you to name a name so you can get sued or something. And I'm like, Michael, why are you being down? It's not about me wanting anybody to get sued. It's me wanting at least some concrete information to base our whole discussion on here for once. If you're going to claim there's a pedophile ring, then who was a member of the ring? Who were the members of the ring?

Like, you make it have an assertion, but then you don't give any basis for the assertion being at all factual or based on the evidentiary record in any way. Here's a name. Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, wow. Okay, that's a new one. I never heard of him. Investigate him for decades. They gave him the lightest scent as possible. They let him go back.

They knew he was committing all these crimes and abusing all these girls. And they didn't re-arrest them until there was another story out. Jake, man to man. I'm worried about you. because I'm able to infer here that you've never bothered to read the actual 2019 indictment of Jeffrey Epstein is you're saying quote they knew that he was going around raping all these little girls or all the time for the in the interim period between his first arrest and incarceration and the second arrest and they just let him get away with it for like 11 years that's not what even the government ever

charged him with there was never a claim Epstein committed any illicit sexual acts against any persons under the age of 18 after the year 2005. Again, I know it's not as exciting to learn the actual information here, but, hey, I guess that's my fate to try to apprise you of it. Over a decade later, et cetera, Galane Maxwell, there's another name. And again, for decades, they left her alone, even when they went out. The woman sitting in prison right now, I mean, you're calling for like accountability or you're denouncing the FBI and CIA for not holding these child rapists accountable.

And then you're saying that the examples of the people who have been allowed to escape accountability are people who are either dead when they were in federal custody or currently in federal prison. So explain that to me. By the way, Gilea Maxwell was never credibly accused of actual child rape. I know she was convicted, but like, even the overt acts for like some kind of illicit sexual contact that were alleged in that trial, none of it ever rose to the level of what you would call child rape. I mean, give me a break. After Epstein, they didn't go after Maxwell. He even attacked Julie K. Brown, by the way. He attacked Julie K.

They didn't go after Maxwell. We'll go to Julie K. Brown, that's the reporter. Yeah. So, Julie K. Brown is just a brazen liar. As confirmed totally incontrovertibly yesterday. So here's what Julie Kay Brown had to say from this appearance.

She says that I, Michael, she's been wondering for a long time who is paying me, Michael Tracy, to harass and smear Epstein survivors. Which powerful men are behind this propaganda, she says. So funny. That's just one example of Julie Kay Brown's lies because, of course, I wasn't quote silent when I was asked that ridiculous question. I immediately answered at the instant I actually heard it and denied, of course, that I'm paid by anybody tied to Epstein or, you know,

Julie Kay Brown is a pure propagandist. She's a propagandist for the conniving victim attorneys who selectively fed her information to advance their own profit-seeking purposes for their supposedly landmark investigative journalism series in 2018, which if you go back and read it, is just a joke. contains just like a lot of just blatant factual errors a lot of just characterization of things is totally off it relies on Virginia opposite

fray who we know is now just like one of the most destructive peddlers of confabulated falsehood and defamation that has ever walked the earth you got a terror ransom in there you got others who are you know

the anti-farmer tales and there's plenty more. I mean, she was like, Julie Kay Brown just a couple weeks ago was saying, hey, any of my followers in Richmond, Virginia, like, go do I do like do some investigation of, I forget even when it was now exactly. It was as though she was like doing a pizza gate. She was like calling for some like mob, mob of pizza gators in 2016 from the Wikilegous emails

to go to like, I'm at ping pong. That's what Julie K. Brown was involved in. She, like, created a whole uproar during the first round of Epstein file releases in December when she's saying, hey, Can somebody explain why I'm in these files or whether tracking my flights or tracking my, my information? It turned out the reason was totally explicable. It's because she said in her own book, and I reminded her of this, that she had purchased

and through the Miami Herald, a flight for Annie Farmer from Austin, Texas to Little Rock, Arkansas in July of 2019. So if Annie Farmer is being contemplated as a potential witness to bring against Epstein and or Maxwell, and she was ultimately brought against Maxwell as a witness. Of course, the FV government investigators are going to be subpoenaing records or acquiring records having to do with this potential witness. And if Julie K. Brown used her credit card to purchase a life for any form, which is bizarre enough, like what kind of collusion is that? Then, of course, she's going to turn up on a record, but Julie K. Brown made a whole viral,

you know, a frenzy out of her accusation about that a few, you know, two months ago. got dispelled immediately as by me in terms of what she was taking a distinctive by, meaning like the Trump administration was surveilling this courageous investigative journalist. There's nothing like that. She would love that to happen in the case because then that could bolster her totally ill-gotten self-image as this like intrepid investigative journalist. But yeah, Dr. Lick-K. Browns is basically a joke.

I mean, I caught her fabricating quotes in her book, Anna. I mean, what do you make of that? it's indisputable i'll send you the references but enough about her because like she's julie kibrand is also defamer now she's going around defaming me so what does i tell you about her journalistic standards that's the reporter who broke the story who broke the story and led to epstein yeah she broke the story of jeffrey epstein so stupid i mean i i want to wrap up soon so I am going to try to restrain myself into going on very many more tangents, but I mean, I know you love kissing this woman's ass, but, you know, she's unraveling in terms of her

credibility as a journalistic authority on this, which she never possessed. I was initially swindled by it, too, when in that series first game match, because I did not have the requisite background knowledge at that point to understand how she was pulling a fast one. and just being the PR agent for the self-serving victim lawyers who orchestrated the whole thing. I mean, go read Bradley Edwards book. She brags about having manipulated Julie Brown into doing his bidding. Getting arrested the second time. So, I mean, if you fancy yourself a great reporter as I think Michael does,

then you should be celebrating Julie K. Brown. That was an amazing piece of journalism that led to the arrest of Epstein that the whole government didn't want to arrest in the first place. and with, again, overwhelming evidence. And you want more names, FBI, names Les Westner's co-conspirator. We've been through all of these, right? But I mean, Lex Westner co-conspirator, I understand he's being, I guess,

deposed or interviewed in Ohio today by the House Oversight Committee. Okay, I mean, Jank, don't you think you should have, again, some background knowledge to understand how to contextualize some of these documents that you're reading or at least seeing social media snippets of

from the Epstein files? somebody being listed as a potential co-conspirator in a certain phase of an investigation, these internal communications, does not mean that the investigators are asserting at that point that they have even probable cause to arrest him for anything, much less evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of having a co-conspirator and a child sex trafficking conspiracy or any crime. And Wexner did cooperate with. the government. He gave a proffer statement that you could find other Epstein files,

lo and behold, that described. And Bradley Edwards, the victim's lawyer, had said years ago, 2019 that he never, over the course of his very thorough investigations, he said, came across any evidence that there was any reason to think that Leslie O'Exeter was even aware of, Jeffrey Epstein's sexual behavior, much less complicit in criminal sexual behavior. And was there a settlement via Wexner and Edward slash boys? You know, there's always been some recent, some pretty solid reasons to suspect that. I would love to know that. So if that's something people would like to investigate, sure.

Go right ahead and let me know what you find. But like the co-conspirator thing is almost a, it's just a red herring to get people's juices flowing or to get people scintillated by like this idea that there's this ongoing. criminal, a covered up criminal conspiracy that needs, they need to demand the exposed. Michael's the kind of guy that you can say 1,200 victims. You can name like all these different guys. Yeah, I am the type of guy if I hear a government propaganda talking point. Like you just repeat it again, Jank. I would object.

I am that kind of guy. I'll admit that because the 1,200 victims thing is a total kind of hard. It's a farce. It's fraudulent. And I just explain why. And please read the substack for the more granular details that very much establish how propagandistic that bogus talk point was. And of course, you like so many others have no problem mindlessly repeating to keep the moral panic fomented. They'll say, so there's no evidence.

You're like, I just listed the evidence. What is wrong with you? And I think part of the issue is he's like he's too thirsty to be standing. out from the crowd. Pick a different story. Pick a different story. Pick a different story. Okay.

Who would be? No, no, but here's why this. Pick a different story. This ain't it. Okay. What, what, what, it, it, or what story would I, am I permitted to pick, Anna? What should I cover? Like the weather, I see some snow outside or, I don't know.

I'll go to the local zoning board meeting and then take a, do I have a contrarian take on that? I mean, what is she even saying? This ain't. It's perfect for that. Because who would be crazy enough to defend Epstein? And Michael Tracy's like, Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I'm crazy.

Maybe I'm crazy. Possibly for Epstein. I'll be your huckleberry. Okay, so I don't think he's being paid. And the earpiece? No, he was playing around with it before. He was having trouble. with it before.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the air piece. And he did say, of course I'm not paid. And he's not. I don't think he's paid. No, no. I'm so grateful. Thank you. Thank you.

Really appreciate it. Really appreciate the support. I don't think he's paid. I think he's wrong on this issue. And he looks even more clownish when he starts throwing out insults again. Clownish. Do do do do. I have too many facts and evidence to be clown.

myself and you. That didn't come out well. But again, I'm singing on the fly here. Okay, if I'm so clownish, Anna, you know, I'm always available to come on and speak to you. I'll speak to anybody. I'll speak to anybody across the political spectrum, no matter how sympathetic or adversarial they are toward me. So if I'm so clownish and like nothing I could say, could say, would hold up to scrutiny, then let's engage. Again, I'm not lobbying to come on any show. Believe me, I have too much to do at this point already. But I'm just making the point that If I should be presumptively according to you regard as so clownish, then let's actually get down into the nitty-gritty of the details here,

and then we can figure out who has be clown those cells. Because there has been a lot of clownishness. I just think that maybe it hasn't been applied to the right sources, at least yet. against journalists who have been following this story meticulously for many years. And look, the problem with citing, in that moment, in that spontaneous moment, the problem with citing specific examples or evidence is that there's so much. So like, what do you? Yeah. So, I mean, this is funny.

She says it's a problem to cite specific sources and evidence because there's so much, she says. So instead, we should just stay in the realm of like abstract generality. So nothing can actually be empirically evaluated, right? So I'm the one at fault for bringing up any specific examples or evidence of anything. Whereas if I had the right journalist's approach to the story, I would have just pontificated in conspicuously in general terms that actually are not even conducive to any empirical assessment. So that's funny. Remember, what do you remember to cite in that context?

You get what I'm saying, but I mean, we've been covering specific emails. We've been covering the 16-year-old girls. You know, the 16-year-old girl who had autism and Down syndrome and claim that Leon Black had rape. Autism and Down syndrome. Wow. Did you ever have, has she read the complaint? I mean, again, please go read that complaint, people, against Leon Black, and then read the subsequent, read like the answer in the docket and go through it. And then, please, after you impartially evaluate that lawsuit. Come back to me and think that and tell me what you think because, I mean, it's other eludency.

That one. So how do you explain the government not investigating that allegation? That allegation is horrific. So apparently there was an investigation to Leon Black. Charges were dropped, though. I don't know what she's referring to there. This has been the object. This has been in civil litigation for, I think, two or three years.

was there a criminal investigation? Not that I'm aware of. Look, there's always something I might have missed, so I'm happy to be informed if there was some kind of criminal investigation, but I think she might be conflating the civil case and her presumption that that must have been a criminal case. But yeah, I mean, like if it was an actually legitimate allegation,

you would expect it to be a criminal investigation of some sort, right? I don't care how well who the guy is. If he raped a down syndrome, a 16 year old, if he violently raped a 16 year old with Down syndrome, I just don't buy that his being a head phone manager. It's going to mean that he's totally insulated from any criminal liability for that. I mean, please, especially if the allegations are public, right? But they're like looney tune stuff. It's basically just another attempt to extort a very wealthy person by conjuring up some connection to Epstein

and somebody makes a claim. And then they hope he settles. Yeah, and so tell me why they were dropped. I mean, maybe there's a good reason why they were dropped. But no one stated that reason. So since no one was either investigated or all charges were always dropped in this case, if you think that doesn't raise suspicion, you're not being honest. So this is Michael Tracy just doing the look at me, daddy, look at me, daddy strategy here.

So okay, Michael, you win. We all looked at you. But I'm not sure that it was a win you thought you were getting. Yeah, definitely gave you the side eye. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets a swings. Okay. Thank God. Enough already.

Yeah, it's just me doing. I'm just doing a what, look at me daddy song and dance routine. Okay, fine. I don't even know how to response to that. And that's enough. Hopefully I made the points that I tried to make that I sought out to make. I thought this would probably be conducive to a video. I thought about writing something about it, but hey, I thought maybe I'll do a

time video. Maybe they'll watch this or at least part of it and maybe they'll reevaluate some aspect of how they've been thinking about this story. Again, I'm always happy to come on and delve into anything that they'd like and any further detail should they so desire. But there you have it. So that's today's little corrective by me that just happened to be pegged to me individually and so I came across the video. All right. Signing on. for now goodbye.