Part Of The Problem - Epstein Files 2 w/ Thomas Massie

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

Dave Smith brings you the latest in politics! On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave is joined by Congressman Thomas Massie! They discuss Massie's proposal of a new Epstein files transparency act, his feelings about being unseated in Congress, the war in Syria compared to Iran, and more.Find Lauren Smith's book "Healthy Hibernation" here: https://a.co/d/0g2UnnikSupport Our Sponsors:BodyBrain - Go to BodyBrainCoffee.com, use code DAVE20 for 20% off your first order!Hexclad - Find your forever cookware @hexclad and get10% off at https://hexclad.com/PROBLEM! #hexcladpartnerPrize Picks - Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/POTP and use code POTP and get $150 if you win your first $5 lineup! Superpower - Head to Superpower.com and use code PROBLEM at checkout for $20 off your membership. Unlock your new health intelligence. 100+ biomarkers. Every year. Detect early signs of 1,000+ conditions. #superpowerpodPart Of The Problem is available for early pre-release at https://partoftheproblem.com as well as an exclusive episode on Thursday!PORCH TOUR DATES HERE:https://robbernsteincomedy.com/eventsFind Run Your Mouth here:YouTube - http://youtube.com/@RunYourMouthiTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/run-your-mouth-podcast/id1211469807Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4ka50RAKTxFTxbtyPP8AHmFollow the show on social media:X:http://x.com/ComicDaveSmithhttp://x.com/RobbieTheFireInstagram:http://instagram.com/theproblemdavesmithhttp://instagram.com/robbiethefire#libertarian See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey guys, don't forget to buy my wife's amazing children's book over at Amazon. It's called Healthy Hibernation. It's a book for little ones about eating healthy. It's very sweet and people really love it. It's been so well received. It's available in hardcover and soft cover. And yeah, like I said, it's up on Amazon.com. Healthy hibernation.

Please go grab a copy of my wonderful wife's children's book. All right. Let's get into the show. What's up, what's up, everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem, a very, very special episode that I've been very excited about for a couple of weeks now. Very quickly, before we start the show, a couple orders of business. Number one, tonight at 7 p.m. Eastern live right before this show premieres on YouTube,

I will be debating Alan Dershowitz on the Iran War, hosted by Zero Hedge. I am very excited to see what he possibly is going to use, what his defense will possibly be at this point of the war. So that should be exciting. And the other big piece of information is that I will be very relevant to today's show. I will be coming to Kentucky. I will be, that's my next stop is Louville, Kentucky, September, I believe it's 17th and 18th, comicdavsmith.com for tickets there. They're up for sale now.

So go grab those. All right. Speaking of Kentucky, today on the show, we have the legend, the greatest congressman serving today who is, I have not been shy about expressing my admiration for him. I'm so glad that he took some time to talk about everything that's going on today. Of course, the great Thomas Massey. How are you, sir? I am doing great, and I'm excited to come to you from my congressional office,

because in a few days, they're going to kick me into the basement in a cubicle and repaint the walls for whoever's taking this office next. And I also want to congratulate you. You almost said Louisville, right. You've got to have, like, you almost got it right. You didn't call it Louisville or Louisville, but there's got to. be something stuck in your throat when you say it like you're Louisville lovable okay I have been the the what you see there the is progress it's a result of progress like I've been there this is like

my fourth time going and every time they correct me a little bit so I improve like I started with all those versions and then I got through it I'm circling it I'm circling it okay a couple more trips by the end of this weekend I'm going to try to hang out enough that I leave there saying it the right way I'm trying to try to absorb the local dialect you know it is it is it is is, you know, it's an amazing time that we're living through right now. You know, like, as I mentioned, I have a debate tonight on the war in Iran. I've done a lot of these public debates over the last few years. On the internet, this is kind of the new thing.

This is one of the first ones where I've ever been going into it. And I'm like, I don't even understand what is the possible defense here? You know, I got in an argument with the producer of the Stephen Crowder show the other day, on yesterday on Twitter. And he was saying to me, oh, Dave, you're wrong to say that Donald Trump broke a campaign promise. You know, he had always said Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. And I was like, yeah, but you're kind of leaving out the part where they explicitly ran on no new wars. And every single surrogate said there would be no new wars.

And in fact, top surrogate said, don't vote for Kamala Harris because you might get war in Iran as Trump himself had warmed with Obama. So anyway, from your perspective, as somebody who was correctly, at this point undeniably, against the 12-day war, against this war that we now find ourselves in, just this disaster, what's it like to be in this moment where your go is like it's almost like exactly, guys, and this is why we warn you up and look where we are. Man, I would love to be in on that debate. I'm not inviting myself, but I want to give you a few things. Well, first of all, the 12-day war, the one that was just a light touch in the beginning, I actually wrote a war powers resolution to stop that one, but they didn't bring it up. We couldn't bring it up in that period of time. So when he did the second war, they just used the one that I had written for the first one because it was already in the hopper and it had already matured.

Look, there's something called the 1973, I think. it is, might be 74, war powers resolution or war powers act. It was actually meant to him in the president. Now they use it to say, oh, this gives a sector authority to start a war without Congress. But it has to be an emergency with like America in jeopardy before you can exercise that clause of the 1973 war powers resolution. But there's also a section 5B and 5C of that act that was passed. By the way, Nixon, here's how you know it was meant to him into president. Nixon vetoed it, and they overrode his veto. I think that's the history on it. He certainly didn't want it because he didn't feel like it was giving the president more authority.

It was supposed to give them less authority. Well, there's two sections in there. One of them, they argue, is constitutionally dead now in light of a 1983 INS versus Chata decision. It's the Supreme Court where they say you can't have a legislative veto. But the Supreme Court has never ruled on this 1973 War Powers Act. And here's, so there's two sections in there, one of which the White House is claiming is unconstitutional. It's on the books, it's a law, but they're not going to follow it because they don't think they have to follow it. And that's the one that says if the House and the Senate pass a concurrent resolution that says, get out of this military action or war or, you know, whatever you want to call it, then the president has to withdraw. We did that. And it's the first time in history, the House and the Senate have passed the same

exact language. So it qualifies under that law as a concurrent resolution that's supposed to bind the White House. They're supposed to withdraw right now. So they've violated that, but they're saying they don't have to obey the law because they think it's unconstitutional, even though it's never been ruled unconstitutional. Now, there's another provision of that law. One of these is 5B, the other is 5C, that says you can only go 90 days. So let's say you're exercising the authority under that law that says, if America is in danger, imminent threat of danger to America, you can go 60 days in a military action. By the way, without a congressional authorization, in the Gulf War, which was the first war in Iraq,

in the war in Afghanistan, and in the second war in Iraq, in all three instances, the president came to Congress and got authorization for that. It wasn't a full declaration of war, but it was an authorization that, for all intensive purposes, satisfied that law. So that those administrations, although they were ill-advised and wantless and reckless, they did get authority from Congress.

The president's not done that in this case. So he had 60 days to do his thing. And then there's a 30-day grace period. So there's 90 days. Well, what happened on the first? the 91st day. They said, oh, this war is over. We are done. We won. And then it wasn't until like the 92nd day, they started another war. And now every time they hit Iran, they say it's a different war. So the president may actually be right when he says we've won 12 times, because

he started 12 wars, according to their legal theory. But here's what that tells me. me. And by the way, they had casualty statistics that they had to revise down. They were attributing to the Iran war. I suspect, and we went from like 14 casualties to 18 casualties. My numbers aren't debts. My numbers aren't exactly right, probably. But they rolled the number back down because they said, whoops, if we count all these casualties toward that initial war, we're admitting that this is one continuous war. And by the way, the president isn't using these legal terms of art. He knows it's all one big, giant war. But his lawyers know they're in trouble. They're in front of their skis and they're legally in legal peril because they are acknowledging the validity of this law.

And then they are using lawyer speak to try to get around it. So those are a couple things I would say about this war from a legal standpoint. point. Yeah, no question. And would you say, because wasn't it really, it's like I agree with everything you just said. And then I think also like clearly by the spirit of the law, I mean, the law of the land is the Constitution and the Congress is supposed to declare war. And certainly, when it's wars that are so obviously wars of choice, these are wars that you would need congressional, but by any, even a liberal reading of the Constitution. But to your point, there is still a big difference between at least George W. Bush came and got some type of approval from Congress.

But really it was Obama, I think, who started the trend of like, now essentially Obama said, I'm just going to use the approval that Bush got and say that that also applies to not only me continuing the war in Iraq, which if you actually read the AUMF, it was against Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. So like it didn't make any sense that we could still use that to continue. But he used that to justify back in al-Qaeda in Libya and backing al-Qaeda in Syria and all these things. And so I guess by the time we got to Donald Trump, you know, Obama had already set the precedent of I could just go to war with Libya and announce it from out of the country via email or whatever. Like it doesn't. And so by the time we got to Trump, he just decided there's no, there's no even pretense of the skeleton of a constitutional Republican framework where you just live under emperor war.

the king can go whenever he wants. Correct. This path is well-proddened over our Constitution. But I would also point this out. I was in Congress in 2013 when Obama and John Kerry said that Bashar al-Assad crossed the red line. And we were going to go to war with Syria. We were going to deploy troops there and attack them like, you know, like we're doing in Iran now. And Obama, I'm not, I don't want to give him credit here.

Maybe it's just because he wanted to put Congress on the spot. But he said, I'm going to Congress to get an authorization to use military force in Syria. And that was in the summer. I remember this very clearly because I got 100 calls a day. It's the most phone calls I've ever gotten in my congressional office before or sent per day from actual constituents, not people on the left coast that, you know, love to call my office or people from New York. A hundred constituents a day we're calling, say, don't go to this, don't authorize this war. Syria. And quietly, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi just withdrew that, that measure from consideration, and we never voted on it. Now, here's why Obama doesn't get any credit for being constitutional.

They went and spent a billion dollars on a secret war in Syria, okay? According, I got to say this, according to the New York Times. Well, there's been, look, there's been a bunch of work written by that. They actually just at the Libertarian Institute, if anyone wants to check that out, they just published a book this last year about blanking on the name. Oh, I'm so sorry, I'm blanking on the name. But they just published. Natalie, if you don't mind pulling that up.

The Libertarian Institute, they just published a Bush on the origins of the Syrian War. I read it last year was fantastic. But on the CIA backing, what you're talking about when Obama's started putting a billion dollars a year and at the beginning to back the anti-Assad rebels, which they found out very quickly and knew who the anti-Assad rebels were. It didn't take a genius to find out who the radical Sunnis over in that region were. Right. And by the way, at the time, I went on CNN and had the audacity to challenge this narrative that Assad was using chemical weapons on his own people. The CNN anchor,

I think it was Kate Baudan, Baldwin or something, was aghast. You could go back and find the look on her face. When I said, no, I don't believe he used chemical weapons on his own people because that is the one thing that would justify us getting into that war and he doesn't want us in the war. I think it's a false flag or just a made up allegation. And by the way, there was an MIT professor

who said the same thing. They're showing you rain barrels and saying these are rocket holes and things like that. And people, you know, there was carbon, dioxide and high concentration, other things that could have caused the illnesses and some deaths that happened there. Anyways, I think I was later proven to be right, but nobody, you know, just quietly they went on. That's right. That's right. No, I remember it very well. And it made no sense at all at the time because Donald Trump had already announced that we were going to

withdraw troops from Syria. The civil war was coming to an end. So essentially Bashar al-Assad had been fighting for his life to not go down like Omar Gaddafi for years and years and years and had conducted a very bloody civil war. I mean, he was certainly guilty of war crimes as well, but conducted this huge effort to save his own life. And then when he's won, he would do the one thing that would guarantee that the Americans wouldn't leave. It just made no sense. And then, of course, after you came out and took that stand, there were a couple whistleblowers at the OPCW who came out and said, yep, they suppressed a bunch of information that made it looked like this was a chemical attack launched by by bachar al-Assad.

It was in a rebel-controlled area, and there was lots of evidence to suggest that it wasn't an attack from the sky. So it just didn't add up. Aaron Matey over at the nation did some excellent reporting on this. Highly recommend that. So yeah, it's always always be skeptical when they come up with this scenario that goes, wait, really? So you're telling me that they did the one thing that would be completely only in the interest of the military industrial complex. Yeah, that's convenient. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Body Brain Coffee.

If you're already drinking coffee every morning, you might as well make that cup work harder for you. Body Brain Coffee is amazing. I've been drinking it for months and telling you about it. But now the creamer is here and it takes that regular coffee or even better, body brain coffee and turns it into a smooth, creamy, super functioning cup of coffee that actually tastes great. It's packed with functional ingredients like C8 MCT, oil for a quick source of energy, cordyceps for performance and endurance support, rodeola for stress, fatigue, and mental performance, and collagen to support skin and connective tissues, plus Ceylon cinnamon.

And unlike a lot of creamers out there, body brain creamer is sugar-free, dairy-free, with a coconut milk base that gives your coffee that smooth, rich creaminess you actually want from a creamer. but the real move is stacking it with body brain coffee. That's what I do. I have a cup every day of body brain coffee with the creamer. I feel better than I ever have. No handful of pills, no sludge from a mushroom, no injections, no supplements, none of that. Just a smooth, delicious, creamy cup of coffee packed with ingredients designed to support your daily routine.

So please go support this company, as I've told you. It's the brainchild of Louis J. Gomez, the guy who convinced me to start stand-up and podcasting. Bodybraincoffee.com is where you go. The promo code is Dave 20 for 20% off your order. One more time, bodybrain coffee.com, promo code Dave 20 for 20% off. All right, let's get back into the show. But while we're talking about the AUMFs, the other crazy thing that's happened that people just kind of went on and ignored, the most expensive, lavish, biggest U.S. embassy on the planet is in Iraq.

And it's because they knew if they planted that there, we would never leave because then you would have the images of it being overrun by, you know, rebels or whatever, savages, you know, overtaking a U.S. Embassy with the flag being burned and taken down. So they planted the biggest, most expensive embassy, U.S. Embassy in the world, in Iraq, as a sign that we're never leaving. And then they used the Iraq AUMF to kill Soleimani and say that, well, there's a war in Iraq. And this AUMF covers that even though we're killing somebody from another country. Yeah, that's right. That's right. And even, I mean, just the fact that we got to kill that. We overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Sunni Baathist, and put into power the Shiite militias who were most closely linked with Iran.

We handed Baghdad to Tehran, and then we sit here and go, well, that's why we have to kill the leader of this Shiite militia or whatever, the Iranian general. I wanted to, so another piece of information that I found kind of interesting. So, of course, famously, when you were, but let's just say, unseeded by the Israel lobby in your congressional district, a district that you had won over and over and over again with wide, wide majority. And in fact, even I had looked back over the numbers recently, even in 2020, when you committed the heinous crime of being good on the ridiculous spending bills that led to so much of the price inflation that has just destroyed American families over the last five years. There was one congressman, I'm sorry, let the record show. There was one congressman who stood up and demanded a vote and railed against this and said,

this is insane while the president was bragging about how it's the biggest bill ever. but Donald Trump turned on you over this in 2020, sent his supporters to attack you, attacked you in very vicious ways. You won your primary with 82% of the votes that year. 81%, excuse me. 81%. And he said, I should be thrown out of the GOP. Yeah, you know, and it was a serious opponent.

Like, you know, he checked the boxes. He wasn't like some gadfly. He was actually the attorney for Nicholas San. who was somewhat of a celebrity and a hero in my district. He was the one who, you know, was a pro-life protester who had the Native American banging the drum in his face and he sat there without responding. Anyways, yeah, that was a live fire exercise and I got 81%. And by the way, a year before I lost this primary here in Kentucky, my fave unfaved, we polled

these things, right, was 6212. Okay, that means if you say, are you very favorable, somewhat favorable, and add those two numbers and say, are you somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable, add those two numbers. The ratio of those two added numbers was 62 to 12 in the district. And which my pollsters are like, oh my gosh, we don't see these kind of numbers anywhere in any district. And then what happened is for nine months. So they started, I believe, in June, June, almost a full year before the primary. They started running negative ads nonstop, like $2 million of ads 10 months before my primary. And obviously, I didn't have the money.

Normally I have about $200,000 in my campaign account. You know, that's by Warchest. So I have like $200,000 in my campaign account. They didn't even have an opponent to run against me. There was nobody filed. and it was the Israeli lobby. It was Miriam Adelson's money. They started spending it 10 months, maybe 11 months before my primary.

And as we polled, we watched my fave, unfape go down, down, and tell it flipped. You know, when you're in the incumbent and you go underwater, and that was their whole goal, just to like open up with a belt-fed machine gun of lies and keep, you know, suppressive fire. because you can't do that overnight either. You can't pounce on somebody six weeks before the election and change the outcome. And so it was a concerted effort, but that's okay. You know, I've said this privately. I'll say it for the first time here, I think publicly.

You know, I'm a widower. I was married to my high school sweetheart for 31 years. We were together 33 years. And she's in heaven. And she built superconductors in high school, right? On her farm, she could do differential equations. If there's anybody, God lets advise on outcomes on earth when they get to heaven. I think it would be my wife.

And I'm convinced she was instrumental in getting me out of Congress because it's the best thing for my soul. So I have no animosity toward the liars and the cheats and the people who spent $30 million at their money. to take me out. I think they were just her tools to save me from this. Because look, Dave, I'm a, I'm a focused, I'm like a, you know, I'm an engineer by training. I have attention focus disorder. I will focus on problems and keep working on them way past the time when, you know, most people would give up. I would be up here stroking out like McConnell in 20 years if they hadn't beat me. I've been, sir, I've been informed. He's absolutely fine. And I, see no reason not to, I see no reason to suspect that they would be hiding anything.

Well, that's, by way, he's inspired a term limit bill that I may introduce before I leave. I'm going to call it three strokes and you're out. Fetterman's on deck. That's not bad. Federman's on deck. You got one left, buddy. You're pushing it. Well, listen, that's a very beautiful thought.

I just, it kind of made me feel bad because I was like, I think maybe your wife is in heaven and she's trying to be your guardian angel and get you out of Congress. and then me and everybody I know are just trying to get you to do something even harder in another year. I apologize for that. She knew that would happen. She knew that would happen. She knew I would fight my guts out, too, to stay here, which I did. I did everything I could.

No, you did. Well, look, I will say one of the things, first of all, I really appreciate it, even in the spirit of what you just said right there. I said this publicly on the show. I said this privately to a lot of people, that there was something I really just loved about the spirit of your speech that you gave after it. It was like, I think you, yeah, you did fight hard. You accepted what happened. And I think part of what there was something kind of beautiful about it. And one of the things that was beautiful, it's like these things in life. It's kind of a double edge sword. It definitely stung that they were able to do that. It hurt to find out some some kind of painful truths, which is that,

hey, man, there still are a lot of boomers, you know, in a lot of these districts. They still are only getting their news from Fox News. They are hearing from Mark Levin, and they're simply not hearing the other side of the story. And everyone who does hear the other side of the story gets convinced by that. But one of the things went, so it was like, okay, that kind of sucks. It turns out money still matters. The Israel lobby pumping in $30 plus million and Fox News having a blackout, like the Murdox

and they all still have some power. Yeah. But man, when you look at the numbers of the breakdown, by age. Like this was, it was unbelievable to see. It had, it literally, I'm not exaggerating when I say, it only worked on the boomers. It works on nobody younger than that. Now, because of that name, boomers understand there are a lot of them.

That is the main thing that kind of characterizes that generation. But however you feel about it, there's becoming less and less of them over the years. And it was unbelievable, man. 50 and under everybody. with you. 40 and under, it was like the numbers were like insane. And then 30 and under, it's like, I don't even think it registers on the, but it was like 90 plus percent. And there was something about that to me, man, that was so like, I don't care what side of the issue you're on. If you're telling me, who would I rather take everyone over 55 or everyone under 55?

Obviously, if you're banking on the future, you want everybody under. And so that was just extremely encouraging to me, and I'm sure it was for you too. Yeah, I mean, the future is with us, but it also, you know, I'm an inventor. I've got 30 patents, and this election gave me an idea for another invention. The boomers watch Fox in their living room and in their kitchen. I'm going to invent a CPAP machine that you can watch Fox on, and I'm telling you, I'll sell millions of them. But then we got to get it like, like maybe it'll break. into like a podcast every now and then or something like that. I do say though, listen, man, I do say like I think this is something I try to tell the people out there. There is a little

bit of an obligation here on us where we got this new thing where like we have a new decentralized media where we're outside of the propaganda machine. If you got a boomer in your life who's a good person, try to work on them if you can't. Let them hear the other side of this because I'm telling you a lot of what this is, is that people just, you know, if you only hear from, say, Mark Levin or something like that, and he's telling you, hey, this Thomas Massey guy has lost his mind. You know how you used to like him? I know, but now he's become crazy and he's off on this. It's fairly easy for someone and just go like, oh, wow, I didn't realize Thomas Massey.

And then they see a clip out of context. Then they see an AI generated video and they don't even understand what AI is. You know, I was saying to my mother-in-law, my wife's mother the other day, she's a boomer, you know, and I just used the term CGI about a movie. And she went, what's that? And I went, no, you know, C-G-I. Like, when it's fake in the movie, like what you see isn't really happening there. Forget AI. She had never even heard of the term C-G-I.

They just are unaware of this stuff, you know? When you say you're using AI in rural Kentucky, it means you're artificially inseminating your cows. That's what AI means in rural Kentucky. And so when you throw up the words AI or even the whole word artificial intelligence, that could also be the name of the super PAC. It's like in the same font. And I had older people come up to me at my rallies. These were supporters.

And they said, I don't care if you went on a date with AOC and Ilhan Omar. You've got the most conservative voting record. I'm still going to vote for you. But it really bothers my neighbor. And I literally had a woman tell me that. I was like, man, the commercials are not real. And she looked at me like, really? How did they get that video of you checking into the hotel with them and at the restaurants?

And I'm like, I try to explain it to her. And she says, wow, well, now I'll go tell my neighbor because she said she's not voting for you because she saw that video. But I was going to vote for you anyway. And that's when I knew. It worked. I honestly, when I saw it, I thought it would backfire. I thought this is so ridiculous that it will backfire. It makes me angry.

It makes me angry because keep in mind, and I hope everyone keeps in mind, it's not that lady's fault. Like, that's not on her. It's on them and being manipulative. Like, it's not a reasonable expectation to, and believe me, I give the boomers a lot of crap as a generation, but it is an unreasonable expectation that like a 73-year-old is supposed to figure out that, oh, wait, you can generate images now that look just lifelike and like there's, it is a totally reasonable expectation that if I saw a picture of someone in a

political ad, that that's a real picture. They wouldn't be allowed to show that to me if it wasn't a real. Like, it's just, anyway, it's something to keep in mind that. Oh, no, bless you. It's something to keep in mind that a lot of those people really have been manipulated by all of this. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show. which is Hexclad. I don't know about you guys, but one of my favorite parts of the summer is grilling. I love to do it. I do it as much as I can every single summer. But the grilling season doesn't end at the end of summer. The kids might be back in school, but we still got at least a couple more months of grilling. And it's still worth it to check out the Hexclad's barbecue collection if you have not already.

Hexclad has brought their hybrid technology outdoors this year with products specifically designed to make grilling easier, especially when you're cooking foods that normally don't cooperate on the traditional grill. The hex-clad barbecue pan combines the searing power of stainless steel, the durability of cast iron, and the convenience of non-stick, all in one versatile grilling pan. The perforated design lets heat and smoke flow through, so vegetables, seafood, fish, and kebabs still get that smoky grilled flavor without falling through the grates. They've also launched their new barbecue grill topper, which gives you even more control when cooking delicate foods, veggies, seafood, or multiple portions at once.

And if you're looking for the complete setup, Hexclet offers the barbecue bundle featuring the barbecue grill pan, hybrid cutting board, and the carving set. So you have everything you need to grill, prep, carve, and serve without constantly running back and forth to the kitchen, which, as you guys know, can get annoying. So for a limited time, our listeners can get 10% off your order with our exclusive link. Just head over to hexclad.com slash problem. Once again, that's hexclad.com slash problem for 10% off. All right, let's get back into the show.

To clear the air, and I swear, I swear this is true, I really did this. I went to AOC and asked if she had seen the video, and she laughed and said, yes. And I said, I just want you to know, I would never go on a three-way date with Ilhan Omar. That's the limit. Yeah. And she thought it was funny. So I'm not being censured today in Congress. She laughed.

Okay, very good. Very good. She laughed. It's a risky. It's a risky move making a joke with AOC, sir. You never know. But if she likes it. If she laughs, then it's good.

But if not, then you're a me too, something predator. So that's good to know. So I wanted, I'm sorry, there's one more point I wanted to make on the Iran stuff before moving on. It's whatever. Let's move on to Epstein a little bit here. So I want to talk about the Epstein files part two. The Epstein Files Transparency Act 2, and maybe even a bit about the first one. Let me start here.

Knowing as you do know very well that the Dow Jones is currently over 30,000, why are you doing this, man? Like who cares about child sex trafficking when you're an environment? Now, if we were at 29,000, I could understand this. And yet even here, I'm sorry, I just saw that video was going viral again today. One of the greatest testimonies. The auto-tune version of it. Oh, my God.

It led to show many glorious memes. I was there. I was in that hearing, right? She was in front of me when that all happened. I tried to ask her serious questions about with, you know, they had redacted Leslie Wexner's name and picture. And, you know, they protested, oh, well, he appears, you know, several hundred times in the files.

And we didn't redact his name on purpose. I said, yes, but this is the FBI document that's. says he's a co-conspirator and a child sex trafficking case. That is the one place where you redacted his name. So I asked Pam Bondi what I thought was an obvious question after I forced them to unredact it through public humiliation was who redacted this? Like they didn't take a five-gallon bucket of Sharpies and a bunch of interns and throw them in a room with a bunch of documents, right? This is all done on a computer by people who have limited access. They're tracking me. when I go over to the DOJ. They've got a unique login for me. They know every one of those files

I've looked at. They know every redaction I've tried to unredact while I'm over there. So they know everybody who redacted everything. That would be the question. If Jim Jordan really cared about what is going on, we would have that answer tomorrow. Which person at DOJ redacted that? because it could be a lowest learner type. She's the one sort of famous middle management at IRS who targeted the Tea Party on the 501C3 applications and claims to be a free agent, you know, that she was self-directed when she was doing these things.

There could be somebody that's self-directed at DOJ who's doing nefarious things in there. Does nobody care? And I know they track these things. So anyways, I did ask Pam Bondi a serious question. So let me talk about the first bill and the second bill. The first bill caused the release of 3 million files. And a lot of things are known that were not known.

And if I hadn't been here in Congress, it would have absolutely never happened. I'm not taking full credit. There were three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Bobert, Nancy Mace. All three of them have paid a huge price. Okay. Trump vetoed Lauren Boberts water bill, you know, that would bring water to arid parts of Colorado, just out of spite, right, for that. Nancy Mace could have won her governor's race. She could have gotten, possibly could have gotten the Trump endorsement. She forewent that by co-signing this. And Marjorie Taylor Green is no longer in Congress. This was the breaking point for Trump. He was like- Has that her family threatened. Her kids, yeah. And Trump wanted, when he said, you're no longer my supporters, he was also talking about his biggest supporter, Marjorie Taylor Green. They all paid a tremendous price. But this would not happen.

There would not be three million files. And it took so many miracles, honestly, for me to get this done, for this to happen, that it makes me more spiritual to the past. that I took and the improbability at four or five points in that path where it was like 100 to one and I won. It's like I won the lottery four times in a row on certain things that had to happen to get this done. So I got it done. But then everybody's like Monday morning quarterbacking the bill and saying, well, you should have done this, you should have done that, you could have done this, why didn't you give the standing to Congress or the victims or whatever. I have two answers. to that. Number one, we wrote the bill in one day, okay, from the moment at which I realized

it was possible and conceived of how I could get it done to when we got it in the hopper was less than 24 hours. And we did not consult anybody, frankly. We did this all on our own here in my office. I tell people the Epstein Files Transparency Act is probably the only bill that's ever passed Congress without being touched by a lobbyist or one of the permanent staff here in Washington, D.C., which I call the Deep Congress. We literally got this done, written and put in the hopper before anybody knew it was coming. And that was part of the element of getting this done was the element of surprise, which I had to maintain. But I will, and so that's the first thing. We didn't have a lot of time to write it. We wrote it all by

ourselves. And boy, it actually worked pretty well. And then people say, why didn't you do this or that or this? Well, we, you know, we threaded a needle on this thing. If it had been any more comprehensive, it might have gotten choked down at some point with some objection. You know, I had to get every Democrat to agree to this. And so, you know, and some of those Democrats are honestly, the neocon, police state, like, you know, when they're in the majority, they chair the Intel committee, they chair the Armed Services Committee. Trust me, those people were worried about the Epstein files, those Democrats. And I still got them to do it.

So it was, I think, the biggest thing we could do and still get it passed with all of these contingencies. All right. But here's what we've realized with the benefit of hindsight and also with the momentum on our side. I worked with the attorneys for the survivors. I worked with the Attorney General from the State of New Mexico and other attorneys who have been involved in this case and cases like these. And we perfected the first bill. I never anticipated, by the way, that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States would not enforce a law that was passed by both chambers of Congress and

signed by the president. But that's where we all. are. Pam Bonnie and Todd Blanche are not enforcing the law. So here's what we do. Can I just, just before, I'm sorry to interrupt, but before we go into the second one, because I think that's really worth accentuating for a little bit here. So we got three million documents. Of course, there are, as you pointed out, they're heavily redacted, and we know at least has been confirmed, redacted in inappropriate, illegal ways, at least a few times, where they're not supposed to be. There's more details that you've done a lot of interviews on this, where even when you go to the unredacted rooms, there's redactions there.

It's this, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, because this is my understanding of it, that the law is very clear. There are, like, a couple of exceptions, like, you can redact to protect victims, and you can redact, like, for national security or something like that, right? And now there's just three million more documents that they're simply not releasing, that are completely in violation of the law. There's essentially no defense even, like, I haven't even seen an argument offered as to why it is legal for them to keep.

Correct me if I'm wrong again. So they're just not showing us the other three million. So very, very low key. They have actually, they've covered their ass, okay? Okay. They would not tell you there were three million other documents unless they thought not disclosing that might get them in jail one day, right? That's the only reason they're telling you,

they're only giving you three of the six million, and they don't think you need the other. three million, right? And you're correct, for the most part, they haven't given any legal reason for withholding those. With one exception, they have given a very strained legal reason for why they're withholding the documents we care about the most and the documents that they are required by law to release, which are specifically called out in the first bill. We say in the first bill, you have to release internal memos and emails and documents about your decisions whether to prosecute and whether to investigate.

Because clearly they got on the trail sometimes and then just walked away from the trail. Clearly, there were DAs in New York who were urging the DOJ to investigate to prosecute some people and they were not doing it. There were decisions made. And that's at the heart of this. Why did they give Epstein such a light sentence the first time? Where are those documents? Somebody discussed that somewhere.

We want those documents. Why did they continue to pursue Leslie Wexner, which they had, or Groff, Leslie Groff, who was his right-hand woman, not a victim? Some of these victims were caught up in the whole thing, and I'm not blaming them. But Leslie Groff was clearly one of these people. who was just serving men up women on a menu from these so-called modeling agencies, right? She was in that pipeline, making that happen. But why did, and they had her listed as a co-conspirator on these documents.

That's another one that they had redacted, that we got unredacted, okay? Why did, where was the decision to quit pursuing that? Now, here's, they've made a low-key legal argument. It's like in a informal memo. sent to Congress. But twice I've seen them say this. And that's just they, that's so they can go back and find it and cover their ass one day. They say these are protected by deliberative process privilege. Now, here's why it does not work. Deliberative process privilege is a figment of the Freedom of Information Act that they came up with to deny you certain things when you do a

freedom of information request. You'll see some things redacted in your FOIA files and they'll have a section, a rule abbreviated, well, it's deliberative process. What they claim is they don't have to show you their homework. They just gotta give you the final exam and the result of it. They don't have to show their work. But we put in the bill that you have to show us these decisions.

Okay, but we called it decisions, internal memos about decisions in the bill, and they're exerting deliberative process, and they're saying deliberations are different from decisions. I don't know what their legal argument is that says they can assert that. I can tell you this, though, it wouldn't stand up one minute in front of a judge. Like, no judge. By the way, this is another concept of law that I hope everybody gets, that a new law, it doesn't have to repeal the old law, right? we don't have to repeal deliberative process. A new law overrides the old law in every instance where the new law applies.

And that is the case with the Epstein files. If you have any doubt of that, three federal judges were asked by the DOJ. I think the DOJ was hoping for a different answer. But after Epstein File's Transparency Act passed and was signed into law, the DOJ went to the three federal courts and said, can you give us your material, your grand jury material and stuff like that, hoping that they would invoke, I think it's Rule 6E and say, no, you can't have that. All three judges, in three, they went over three. All three judges says, oh, as a matter of fact, the way law works is when a new

law passes, it overrides the old law. And so Rule 6E no longer applies in the context of Epstein files, and here's all the files. And the judges gave all those files. to the DOJ and the head to release them. And so that's, so that's why I know this, their, their legal argument for withholding the documents we care about the most will fall flat. So, and then that's also, now we have to kind of, that will be a good, that would be a good pivot into the new law. Okay.

Yeah, sure. Well, look, I'll just say this real quick on the old one before and then let's, let's get to the new one. Number one, I mean, it is just, it's hard to oversee. state, I don't know that there's ever been a political scandal that I've ever lived through that's looked worse than this. Now, I'm even saying short of like, it, even with the three million documents that have been released, there's still so much that is a question mark.

I mean, there's so much it, like, when I say, like, look, obviously they lot, the administration just lied over and over again. They lied about their promises to be transparent. Then they lied about what they actually had. Then if you remember, there's one point where Pam Bondi claims on camera that there's there's hundreds of hours of Jeffrey Epstein. She said it was kitty porn and Jeffrey Epstein himself with children. She made this claim once, by the way.

Dave, hold on tab that. Let me, I got to insert this. She lied to my face in her office in front of Jim Jordan and every other Republican, the Judiciary Committee, in front of Todd Blanche, Hermit, Dylan, Dan Bongino, who are all in the room. And this was the impetus. When people say, why didn't you do this sooner? Because I've never been lied to my face by the attorney general in such a blatant manner.

She told me they had a special dinner. I am on the judiciary committee. This is just another twist of fate. Why is a nerd from MIT? How does he get on the judiciary committee? Right. It's because their guerrillas up here in D.C. on K. Street fighting about patents. And I've got 30 patents.

And in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. So even though I don't have a legal degree, I'm the only person in judiciary that knows what's up and down on patents, right? So that's like how I got on the judiciary. So what did she say to you in that? Okay. Yeah. And by the way, I tried to clear it with Jim Jordan before I asked the question.

On the way over, I said, Jim, I know this is like a getting to know you meeting. and we're supposed to be nice in this meeting, and it's just about making a personal connection with the DOJ since we have oversight of the DOJ in our committee. But I really want to ask this question about the Epstein files because she has released the binders, and then there's nothing else. She's saying these.

And he said, Massey, you do you. I know better than to try to tell you what to do. So we get over there. and we get done eating. It was a dinner meeting to have their own China at the DOJ with a DOJ logo on the plate. So you're literally eating off of DOJ plate. And there's a whole cadre of judiciary members. And it's like, okay, it's question time.

And I believe if memory serves me correct, nobody else would say anything at that moment. So I like asked the first question. I think it was the very first question. And I said, you know, you release those binders and some files. When can we, and you said there's more coming, when can we expect to see the rest? And she goes, oh, my goodness, it's nothing but pornography and C-SAM material and nobody would want to see it. And what do you say to that? No, show me the pornography, right?

Like she, obviously at that point, I couldn't have a follow-up question. Like, well, but I walked away from that dinner thinking, this is not true. She just lied to me. And so that was the beauty of that lie is that it's the perfect lie to just go, oh, oh, it's all child porn. Because then it gets any normal person to go, oh, all right, well, yeah, yeah, don't show that to anyone then, man. It's like the one thing you could say that would be like, oh, okay, fine.

Like, yes, obviously you don't want to put that out there. But like, so this is one of the thing. of the things I would say that's been revealed from the first Epstein Files Transparency Act. One of them is that they were hiding a ton of stuff that was not what Mike Johnson said will bring down the political order or was a threat to national security. It was simply stuff that looked really, really bad that we kind of still don't have answers to. Stuff like his urologist emailing him, bring nine-year-olds in grape soda. Huh?

You know, like, what is one to do with that information other than speculate, like, about what the hell is going on here? All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is prize picks. Football is finally back and prize picks is bringing out their best offer yet. New users who sign up will get $150 in lineups. If you win your first $5 lineup, that's right. If you win your first $5 lineup, you get $150 in lineups.

And now prize picks is available nation. wide. So what are you waiting for? Lock in for kickoff because everyone and everything is on prize picks. Prize picks, if you guys don't remember, it's very easy. You just pick two to four players and then you pick more or less than their projected stats like pass yards, rush yards, fantasy score. So if there's a running back, you can bet on whether he's going to get more or less than 100 rushing yards for the game. It's very easy. You don't really have to understand the game's intricacies that well. It's just going to make watching the game more fun because you got something to root for. You throw a few bucks down. And if you do really understand the game, it just makes that much more fun, too.

And you got to check out the 2006 NFL stacked September. Prize picks is going crazy with the deals to start the football season, giving users a new promo every day during stacked September. Make sure to sign up now for guaranteed picks every Sunday, along with profit boosts and daily discounts throughout the month. So download the app today and use the promo code POTP to get $150, instantly in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup. So all you got to do is get the prize picks app. Download that today and use the promo code POTP to get that $150 instantly in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup.

Prize picks, run your game. All right, let's get back into the show. Or Howard Lutnik taking his kids to Epstein Island for lunch after he had said to camera just weeks before, he was a disgusting individual and I never had anything to do with him after the first meeting. Or Bill Gates, slip in his wife, antibiotic roofies to hide some, you know, disease he caught from prostitute somewhere. Or at least Jeffrey Epstein claimed that and was using it in a draft email that he was

maybe going to send to him. Like, again, I'm trying my best here to be open to explanations, but what exactly is the explanation for that? Now, the other thing I got to say that I thought, and this was, look, if I'm just being completely honest here. The thing that I kind of had in my mind about Jeffrey Epstein before you ever got these files released from what I had known of him was I think essentially what a lot of people had. You were like, okay, I know some details about this. This seems really shady. It seems really shady that a guy happens to out of nowhere get hired by Barr's father who's an intelligence guy

and he gets put at this elite school, Dalton, when he's really not credentialized for that. And then just a few years later, he's essentially like a partner at Bayer Stearns. And then he's on his own. This seems very intelligency. You know, this doesn't seem organic. And then you have the, of course, what he's convicted for soliciting prostitution from an underage, you know, soliciting prostitution from a child. However, you want to dress that up. And so he's convicted of that. These powerful men, he's in this nexus. They still hang out with him. I had heard that there were cameras on his property. And I had heard the alleged Acosta quote about how he's intelligence. And so in my mind, what this always seemed like, what I speculated is a lot of people did,

was like, oh, this seems almost like a Mossad blackmail ring where you're trapping people and then you're threatening them with dirt. And look, he's so clearly connected to Wexner and Ghislane Maxwell's father is a Mossad guy. And so this just seemed to me to be the case. Like, oh, he's running like a Mossad type operation. I got to say once I looked through the files, it almost seems like something different that might be much bigger than that, where I've got to. Like now I've got Alex Dershowitz, Les Wexner, and him himself all claiming he's a representative of the Rothschilds who is like negotiating.

He's the guy who's connecting the former Israeli head of defense with Peter Thiel. And he's the guy who's connecting Mossad with the Russians. And I'm just saying, Congressman, you know, when people will say guys like Ron Paul and you, you never got anything done. You just sit there and say no. All you do is say the government shouldn't do this next terrible thing that they do that then turns into a catastrophe. But I got to say, you know, looking at the Epstein files, I think probably what you've done here is at least already given us more of a glimpse into how power actually works at the elite level. It's a little bit more than I was taught how a bill becomes a law. You know,

it turns out there's a little bit more to it than that. And I think all Americans should be indebted to you for revealing this. I don't think anybody has ever gotten a bill passed through both chambers with both leaders of both chambers and the president against the bill of their own party right like it's the path i chose is the hardest path to if you're a squish when you get here they give you bills you have no idea what they are and you get them passed and you go home and you look good but it was just something the deep state wanted anyway this is it's highly a right good but let me let me tell you on the intel thing that was that was my hunch and still is, but I introduced five or six documents into the record before we had the Epstein

files when Cash Patel was sitting in front of me in a hearing and judiciary. Again, the fact that this nerd from MIT is able to ask Merrick Garland and Christopher Ray and Dettelbach and and Cash Mattel and Pam Bondi, they rue the day. They ever let me on that committee because in five minutes, I can, like, show so many things. Like, I did, I showed a video to, to Biden's attorney general of, uh, who was the guy saying go into the capital or whatever. Don't even say his name because they'll, yeah. Anyway, Ray something. Yeah, yeah, Ray Eps. I'll say it. Ray Eps. Look, he was clearly foaming violence there and he got off with the slap on the wrist or something. Like that's, it's, anyways, I'm the one who showed the video to

Merrick Garland and said how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 6th. But anyways, it's a miracle that I'm in that committee, and I introduced into the record in front of Cash Patel five pieces of evidence in the public domain that showed that Jeffrey Epstein was likely Mossad and CIA. Look, he had meetings with Obama's CIA director. Like that was that was known already. So that's that's high level connections man. I mean, I've tried to get meetings with Obama CIA director and I've never been able to. You know, it's like it's not that easy for just anybody to pull these meetings off.

By the way, I want to, I hate to acknowledge the trolls on the internet, but this this one is for them. There's not one member of Congress on the Republican side that's done one percent of what I've done. And right now the impetus is the onus, I should say, is on Trump's administration. Like, just admit it. He has all of the redactions. He's got the other three million files. Don't blame the one dude. This is how I know they're trolls.

They're blaming the one dude that got all this set into motion, right? And it's up to them now. And then as far, like before we go to the second bill, too, as far as like reading the names. They say, oh, those names are already out there. Yeah, they're in phone books. Are they in the Epstein files? Of course, you would expect to see names in the Epstein files of perpetrators. When I read those names on the floor, what I am telling you is I have other information that shows they are guilty.

I have to protect my sources. Those people are guilty. They need to be, you know, I'll hold out a 1% chance that they're not guilty because you're innocent, until proven guilty in this country. So, you know, that's why I say they need to be investigated and then prosecuted. But the DOJ is doing none of that. They're not doing any investigations on these individuals. So, yeah, we knew those names. Go look in a phone book. You can find those names. My name's in the Epstein files for trying to get the Epstein files released, right? there there is new information even though those names are findable there is there is new information conveyed

and i'm doing so at risk to my health and life and well-being and financial well-being later in life to go out and call out these powerful people as being guilty and and worthy of investigation and prosecution yeah no absolutely so now tell us about the part two, Bill, and what is that going after? So part two is the bill I would have written with Rokana, and Teresa Ledger-Fernandez is also a co-sponsor. She's from New Mexico. That's an important state in this story.

That's where Zorro Ranch is. Epstein Files Transparency Act, number two, includes the things that if I had a crystal ball, I would have included in the first one. But I didn't anticipate. You can't know how everything's going to turn out. Number one, it allows the Attorney General in the state of New Mexico to use Epstein files in a prosecution in state courts for state crimes for which the statute of limitations has not expired. And Zorro Ranch is as massive and expansive and is involved in the whole Epstein saga as much or more. So then Epstein Island.

Okay. It's got an airstrip. Epstein's former pilot still lives there or did very recently at the edge of the ranch. It is as if they were there yesterday. I'm told there's still a painting, like a naked painting of Jeline Maxwell on the wall, that all of these books are still on the shelves. And they have gone in there, the New Mexico investigators, but something unprecedented is happening.

The federal attorney general is not cooperating with the state attorney general. And this is like unprecedented. Usually it's just sort of a perfunctory, hey, can you send us these files? Yeah, and they get the files within two weeks if they need some help prosecuted somebody. So this bill, you know, I met personally, my office, the Attorney General from New Mexico. He has been stonewalled by Todd Blanche. And so this bill gives him unfettered access to the file so that he can prosecute crimes that happened at Zorro Ranch. Oh, wow. So this has got real teeth on it this time. Like we're going after who we can prosecute.

I love this. The real teeth. If you want a prosecution and you've given up on Trump's administration, we've got a prosecutor who is ready to go after it, okay? And we've got a crime site that's still there. And, you know, there's a lot of there there. The other thing it does is it clears up this discrepancy. It's semantics. The attorney general is trying to say that deliberative process privilege was not pierced when, if it existed at all, by the way, I don't acknowledge that.

it wasn't pierced by our bill when we said that you have to release the files that show your decisions about whether to prosecute or investigate. This, this, an unambiguous term says that you cannot assert deliberative process privilege. So that's in the bill. That will cause the release. And by the way, any judge would say that if you could get in front of a court. And so there's a third dimension to this bill. It gives standing to three.

categories of litigants in the courts. And by the way, and it doesn't have to be in the D.C. District Court. This is like a very lopsided court here in D.C., as you can imagine. You'd much rather, you never see a good freedom ruling or justice ruling come from the D.C. district, right? It's always like Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, or one of these districts in Texas or Kentucky or Ohio or something. Never, never from the ninth, you know, circuit. I think that's the one out in California that includes so many liberal areas and liberal judges. And so it gives standing to survivors because here's another category of those three million files that are still being withhold. 302 forms that the FBI must complete after they've interviewed a witness or a victim.

The survivors looked in these files and I don't see my file. We're a little. We're my file. I did an interview. Where is it? Or I see my file, but I need to see beyond the redactions, because this was my experience. And I need to know how I was harmed. A lot of time has passed. And I want to know what I said to the FBI and what they, you know, what they also, did they faithfully record what I told them? Right. So those files are missing, but this would give the survivors standing in their own home courts. They don't have to come to Mordor here to file the suit. And then it would give the attorneys general of the various states standing, if Todd Blanche or the next attorney general doesn't cooperate, and it would give members of Congress standing.

So I'm real interesting in getting this one done before January 3rd at noon when I'm no longer a member of Congress. I mean, I should have also given former members of Congress standing, but it'll be up to the other members of Congress to use this lever into, you see, this is an aspect of the law and litigation. I'm not an attorney, but I do know about this. You have to have, it's called either a private right of action or standing or cause, you have to be able, either statutorily, it has to be granted to you or you have to show you've been harmed in some way in order to get standing. And it's been hard to do that.

There is a case that's going forward where one judge did grant standing. And the attorney general is right now contesting the judge's ruling where he's been compelled to release some of the files unredacted by the judge. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is superpower. People are always talking about getting healthier, making New Year's resolutions or plans for the summer to get in shape. If you really want to do something for your health, check out Superpower. This is the future of how people are understanding their health. What Superpower does is they send

a licensed professional to your home, or you can visit a nearby lab if you prefer. It's one simple blood draw that gives you over 100 biomarkers, which is way more than you typically get. And then their app includes detailed information on your heart, liver, thyroid hormones, metabolism, vitamin and mineral levels, even environmental toxins. So from disease prevention to treating that annoying brain fog or simply optimizing your gym game, superpower is the most comprehensive and advanced system out there. They're going to give you recommendations based on your actual body that will benefit you the most. And because one test builds on another, you're going to get a picture over time of how your results are actually going,

unlocking even more information about your body, and personally tailing your supplements, your gym game, your diet to what your body needs. It's really pretty incredible. And Superpower used to cost around $499, but now it's just $199 for the full experience. Superpower believes every human has a 100-year potential, and they're here to help you get there. So go check it out now. Your blueprint is activated with Superpower. Not only did Superpower reduce the price to $199, but for a limited time, our listeners can get an additional $20 off if they use the promo code problem.

Just go to Superpower.com and remember to use that promo code problem. at checkout for an additional $20 off your membership. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, sometimes just the reaction to bills like this can tell you so much of what you need to know or just the reaction of federal judges like, man, why the effort, when this administration ran on transparency on this issue,

you know, speaking of running on this issue, I would say that one of the things that I'm optimistic about in the future is that I do think that we are for all the flaws of a democratic system, we are coming back into another presidential election year. And so many of these issues that you're talking about here, despite the smear campaigns that may have been effective with some boomers, and certainly if anything, just had the opposite effect with everybody younger than that. But the actual issues that you've gotten in a fight over, say like not fighting other stupid wars, not having reckless fiscal policy

that drives us, has driven us up to $40 trillion in debt, transparency on the Epstein issues. These are overwhelmingly popular with supermajorities of the American people. And you know, Miriam Adelson has a lot of money. But, I mean, she can pump, say, $30 million, or Miriam and other Israel lobby organizations can pop, can pump $30 plus million into a little district in rural Kentucky. It can be really tough to pump that into a thousand,

different districts all across the country. In fact, I'd say that's impossible. Fox News could have a blockout of a congressional primary. It's going to be really impossible in the age of the podcast for Fox News to block out a presidential candidate. So, like, if we could get a presidential candidate who was like for transparency, who was a person with some integrity, who had some honesty, who wasn't a crazy socialist and actually believed in Americanism and free markets, I just got to say, man, I think that could really take

off and really, like, change the course of this country. know anyone? Do you know anyone? Yeah, I'm looking at it. Because I got a guy in my, wait, I'll just stop it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Everyone else can do this to me, but not you, the most suited guy in the country to do this. Listen, man, I'm just going to say a lot of people are excited about the prospect of you, maybe a Tucker Carlson, maybe some combination, maybe some stuff comes together over these next couple years. We really try to save this country. Just saying, just a thought, throwing it out there to close the show. Look, I think the ground terrain has to changed somewhat. I found myself shooting uphill because the money was aligned against me.

The administration was aligned against me. And, you know, three to one, the boomers were aligned against me because they don't have alternate news sources. But I think things are changing. I think there's a reason to be optimistic, not today, not in these midterms, not with these clowns I serve with, but with very few exceptions, but in the future. By the way, let me talk about. before we leave Epstein Files Transparency Act, too, the prospect of getting it passed. So, you know, I'm not going to lie, we caught lightning in a bottle to get the first one passed. We had the nation's attention. We organized the biggest press conferences ever in the history of Washington, D.C. In the last, you know, two decades here on the steps of the Capitol with the survivors,

it's going to be hard to recreate that. But there is the pressure of an upcom. election and people start behaving a little more rationally as far as what their constituents want in close proximity to an election. So we've got that going for us. We've also got some congressmen who've announced they're not coming back. We've got some congressmen who will find out in November that they're not coming back. So the prospects for getting people who are unafraid or have nothing to lose have gone up as well. So here's the math. we need every Democrat, just like in the first transparency act, and I anticipate we can get all of them.

Almost 50 have already signed by now in less than 48 hours. And we need myself and three other Republicans. And Nancy Mace is already on board. So really, what I need is two other Republicans. And here's what happens when you get the other two Republicans. every other Republican once forced to vote on it, we'll vote for this. Okay, that's what we saw in the first one. They said it was the worst legislation in the history of the world, right?

If you listen to Mike Johnson, and then he turned around and voted for it. Because it's only when you call the question and then they have to put up or shut up and which side do you want to be on, particularly if we could get this done before the election. this would be another unanimous vote in the House and the Senate. And if we don't get it done before the election, we've got more people who are lame ducks who might be compelled after November. And if we don't do that, I'm not saying I want us to be in the minority, but I can guarantee you the Democrats are going to put this on the floor if they take the majority.

And then the Republicans are going to have to vote on it. and they're not going to vote against it. They would be able to get to the president, I believe, a veto-proof majority. And by the way, this is another funny thing. When we did the first Epstein-Files Transparency Act, I did the discharge petition on the resolution that took the language from a bill that we decided Roecona would lead and inserted it into somebody else's bill. This is a triple-soucal type legislative move that I did that most of my colleagues still don't even understand.

But at the end of the day, what the speaker did, once I got the requisite votes to force a vote on my thing, is he just called up Rokana's bill, which was the bill we wrote together, but we decided to put my name on two things and his name on one. If you go back and look at history, all these Republicans voted for a Rokana bill, the ones they say, Oh my gosh, Rochana is a communist. He's working with this guy. I can't believe he would have anything to do with Rocana. They all voted for Rocana's bill.

It's kind of fun to think about. So anyways, it's a real possibility that we can get this done, but I do need two Republicans. And so that's what it's, in addition to Nancy Mace, that's what it's going to come down to. And Marjorie Taylor Green is no longer here. So we need two that weren't with us the first time. But it should be easier for them. They've already voted for it once, particularly for those who aren't coming back. You cannot imagine how scared my colleagues are of Donald Trump.

What they will say about him behind his back, they will grumble, they will cuss, they are pissed off, and they will do nothing to cross him or to even do something that he 10% doesn't like, because they're terrified of him. Yeah, that's right. But at the end of day, there's safety in numbers. once we get to the requisite votes, right? You can be forgiven for signing the discharge petition because even Mike Johnson's going to vote for the bill most likely.

Right, right. No, and I mean, you're right, they are, a lot of them are intimidated by Trump, but their cowardice just kind of accentuates the courage that people like you and Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Bobert and Roecona, who deserves a lot of credit for all of this too. Congressman Massey, thank you so much for taking the time.

I hope you get the chance to do this again soon. Good luck. Thank you for fighting the good fight, and we look forward to your release party, where we'll all be celebrating your freedom again soon. I'm like an inmate putting X on the door here. The people who take the next office are going to have to paint over the X's in this office

because I'm counting down the hours to January 3rd at noon, but there's also 34 legislative days between now and then, and I don't want to waste any of them, today I'll be introducing the flock off bill and I'll have something for everybody every week that I'm in session. I love that. I meant to talk flock cams with you, but the time caught up. Next time definitely, absolutely. Thank you everyone for listening. Thanks again to the great Congressman Thomas Massey and we will catch you guys next time. Peace.