The Adam Mockler Show - 🚨Trump Epstein COVER-UP Blown WIDE OPEN by Ex Lawyer

Episode Date: August 2, 2025

Shop Adam's new merch collection ➡️ https://shop.adammockler.com/ Click below for premium Adam Mockler content 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@adammockler/join 👉 https://adammockler.com Adam Mockler with MeidasTouch Network breaks down JOIN THE COMMUNITY: Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.bsky.social Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/Adammockler Contact me at: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - Mockler Media LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you look at the polling, no single generation will have the Epstein list on the top three of their issues, but people can care about more than one thing at one time. So we care about housing, the cost of living, the cost of food and groceries, but on our list can also be the Epstein list. We can also care about transparency and accountability within the government. So I always see this talking point. If you look at the polling, people don't actually care about Epstein, but they do. It's part of a broader conversation about transparency and accountability. And if you look at polls of young people my age, a lot of young people are already disillusioned with the current institutions or the establishment.

A lot of people feel like the institutions haven't worked for them or their saddle with student debt. So when Trump got in, people thought he was going to be a change agent. He was going to come in and shake everything up, expose the deep state and drain the swamp. And I think a lot of Gen Zers who maybe had some hope are now realizing he is the swamp. He's worse than the swamp. He'll use the government for his own corruption 10 times more than any other swamp in the past. And the Epstein files has been a really good manifestation of that.

The main reason why this has been so incredibly harmful for the administration is obviously because of Pam Bondi's own words back on Fox News in February, where she said, essentially the list is on my desk right now. Those words really screwed over the admin. They're now getting hoisted by their own petard because they laid this groundwork of conspiratorial thinking. And then they rug pulled their conspiratorial fan base. So I don't think this is going to cause a huge MAGA awakening, but I do think it'll create slightly less dogmatic supporters in the wrong long

run, which is what you want. You want at least a small fraction of MAGA to be peeled off and be less dogmatic and think, huh, maybe this administration does cover up some things. Maybe they do lie about some things. So overall, Gen Z is already prone to being skeptical. And I think this is gonna increase the skepticism. Now, let me ask you this though, with key figures who are still shielded

and just many, many questions, obviously still unanswered. You believe that the Epstein case exposes a systemic immunity for the powerful? And if so, how entrenched you think that immunity actually is? A systemic immunity for the powerful. I am vacillating back and forth sometimes on how deep I think the Epstein list goes. Here's the, here's the position I took to my audience. I think that as a collective society, we have way overhyped what exists in the Epstein files. I have people in my comment section who get mad when I say that I don't think, like they're,

I'm like, listen, Matt Damon is probably not like Tom Hanks and Matt Damon are probably just normal guys. I don't think they have anything to do with this. And my comments are like, you don't think that Matt Damon and I'm like, okay, listen, I know that Jeffrey Epstein, very likely Prince Andrews and a few other very, very powerful people allegedly were involved in this, but I don't think it is a deep list of powerful people being covered up. I do think Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and a few other people were sick and perverted and had over 300 girls come through their place. When I read the indictment from 2002 to 2005, those are the peak years, the indictment in New York, the Southern District of New York, basically just says they created this network where Epstein would find young girls, have those

young girls pay other young girls, have those young girls pay other young girls. And that seems to be the extent of it. Honestly, we've all kind of accepted that there was this island and this island had a factory and of all these, like, no, it honestly seems a lot more boring than that. So to go back to your question, rich people definitely are able to cover things up and consolidate power and get away with things that other people wouldn't be able to cover things up and consolidate power and get away with things that other people wouldn't be able to. But I think Elon Musk is a really good example of that.

With the Epstein stuff, I think it is a small group of people. I think that Trump's name is littered throughout the list. We don't know in what capacity, but it's probably littered throughout the list and flight logs and everything. And I don't think that, I don't know if it's a cabal of rich people being covered up. So it's funny you say that because I too, I get an enormous amount of shit from my sub stack, follows on, I go on various different shows, or even when I was on MSNBC, CNN, like 10 times over the course of the last two weeks. I turn around and I said, I don't believe that Trump

is involved in the illicit behavior. And then people are like, what are you fucking crazy? This is a guy who has actually hit on your daughter. This is a guy who actually makes claims that he was able to go backstage at Miss USA, Miss Universe pageants, and see the women changing. And so this is a guy who was accused and found guilty of sexual assault.

I'm referring to E. Jean Carroll and so on and so on. How could you make that claim? You know, I'm just making the claim off of the Donald Trump who I knew for a decade and a half. I don't think that the documents in this file are going to be as, let's just say, grotesque as the American public, including his own MAGA base, believe. So my question, then why the hell, why hide it? Like something I write about in my sub stack all the time.

What's the point to hide it? Unless you're implicated in something, fucking release it, unredacted, except for the names of the victims, which have to be protected. I would like to caveat, we could talk more about Trump's involvement, but I just don't think, I reject the idea that it was this large cab ball of celebrities like Tom Hanks or whatever. I think that's when it goes a little bit too far. I think there's a valid argument to be made that a lot of Trump's behavior is incredibly suspicious for a lot of the reasons you just listed. But if I had to guess why they're covering it up, it seems to have been answered sort

of yesterday. Back in May, the FBI sat down with Trump and said, your name is sort of littered throughout these files in different capacities. I don't, your name is sort of littered throughout these files in different capacities. Well, I don't know if they used the word littered. They said that it appears several times in the file. Littered was my word, but it appears several times in the file.

We can change that. And then Elon Musk says, Elon Musk directly says Trump's name is in the files. That's why they won't release it. Then they refuse to release it. But I don't know. You said it's not the Donald Trump you've known for 10 years, but you just listed a lot of things about a pretty despicable person that you knew. So like he walked into dressing rooms after buying multiple beauty pageants and then bragged about that on Howard Stern.

He said that he can grab women because they let you do it. Then he hosts a behind the scenes party in 93 with just him and Epstein. I mean, maybe he didn't openly like display these things around you, but there's some weird ass stuff he did with Jeff. I totally agree with you. Weird it is. And if taken at its word is even worse. I've gone backstage with Trump at remember, I only started full time in 2007. And much of the stuff that is reflective in this file certainly

precedes my time with him. But I've gone backstage with him at Miss Universe, Miss USA, even the Miss Teen USA pageant, I was one of three people on the board of directors for the Miss Universe Organization. I never saw anybody without their clothes on. I never saw anybody in their underwear. I never even saw anybody actually in anything maybe other than their bikini. Trump did. Trump said he did. He said he did. Was he just trying to be impressive to Howard Stern? Because that was the nature of the- That's even worse.

What's impressive about that? That's even worse. Well, he was trying to impress him or something, say, oh my God, because you know, Howard would do the, oh my God, you got to see these beautiful women, their gorgeous bodies, just to sort of play to the audience. Trump does that a lot. Now, I'm not going to argue about the E. Jean Carroll case.

That case exists. I'm certainly not going to defend comments that I've heard him make and so on. But comments is not criminality. That's the only point I'm trying to make, is that I hate this concept of conspiracy theories. Because to a conspiracy theorist, they are never satisfied.

It's always something, oh, well, if that's not true, then what about this? All right, and what if he did that? And you can never argue with a conspiracy theorist, because as you're proving them wrong, they're coming up with another conspiracy to conflate the first one. That's the issue I have. I believe as a lawyer, somebody who lived their life, dealing with facts and real evidence, there exists, and I don't want my listeners to get me wrong on this. There exists a real file, all right?

A real file that was accumulated by law enforcement over like many years, six, seven years, starting with what took place down in Florida with Epstein's case, all the way through to the Southern District, as you said. There's real documents by law enforcement. Release the file. Let us take a look at the facts.

Not facts put forth by you, not facts put forth by me. Certainly not facts put forth by Donald Trump, Caroline Levitt, Tulsi Gabbard, or Maggie Mike Johnson or anybody. Put the facts put out by and accumulated by law enforcement. That way we don't have to speculate anymore. I'd love to get your take on the recent $220 million settlement between Columbia

University and the Trump administration. First and foremost, I'd like to know where the money's gonna go, right? And I know it's over a three-year payout, but they made a $220 million settlement, which to me exposes institutional failures in handling abuse allegations. You agree that this payout represents real accountability? Or do you think that it's a financial bandaid to protect not just their prestigious reputation,

but also the billions of dollars that they intended to get through government grants? I would need to read the settlement, but the allegation is that they failed to protect their students against anti-Semitism? Correct. I think that there's probably some truth to that, yeah. It goes more than just anti-Semitism, it's about all of DEI in terms of which students are brought into the school, it's also about who the professors are, what the curriculum that they're teaching are, specifically to Middle Eastern studies. It might overreach there. That seems like some executive overreach.

Here's the thing. I've seen cases on campus of, of course, anti-Semitism or stuff like that, but the Trump administration is not prioritizing fighting anti-Semitism. I don't think that that is a priority on the Trump admin's list. I think that, in fact, Trump has dined with Nick Fuentes, even if you want to say that's an accident, that's an accident. You can say that, but I feel like Trump has fed into some anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in the past. So I'm not sure the admin is totally focused on that. I think that they just want to flex their executive power. I think that when they're suing Columbia, attacking Harvard, when Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal, it's just to try to flex and see how much the executive branch can do. Should the president and the executive branch be able to

change the faculty hired by Columbia, what's taught by Columbia in the courses? I don't think so. I don't think the government should have anything to do with that. In the same vein, I don't think the government should be able to, in a top-down way, have DEI policies enacted at institutions. But I mean, here's the thing. When I first read about some allegations of anti-Semitism, this was under the Biden administration, so this had nothing to do with Trump. I mean, those are probably true. There's probably some things that are happening, but the Trump admin is using this to try to change what they're teaching. That's way too far.

The president shouldn't be able to change what a university is teaching, in my opinion. Or the curriculum in and of itself. I mean, I truly don't understand the point here. And while, sure, there's antisemitism everywhere. Right? And so, yeah, okay, you want to start with the schools? I get it, but I think the manner to which all of these acts by this administration against,

you know, whether it's Harvard, Columbia, you know, any of these elite institutions, I'm with you on that. I think it goes too far. And I'm also going to turn around and make a pretty bold claim on behalf of Gen Z. They don't appreciate this shit. Right? Now, if you don't like the course as a student, don't take it. It's that simple.

Right? Just don't take it. You know, in your math class, there is no anti semitism. Right? I mean, you know, unless of course, the teacher is a, you know, let's just say, you know, a card carrying Nazi, right. And if your last name is Cohen, you know, you're going to get an F, even if you get the, you know, the formulas right, or you get the answers right, You know, you're not talking about math or you know, English or you know, whatever. These are specific Middle Eastern courses that are being taught. There's you know, there are degrees in Middle Eastern studies. They don't want it to be taught by individuals who they think are corrupting the minds. It reminds me of when they were. It reminds me of when they were attacking critical race theory too, which is a legal

framework that should be taught in advanced schools where it's just a framework of looking at things, right? Rather than what they thought, which is like second graders learning that white people are intrinsically evil. So I am going to take the opinion that college campuses are actually where you should be having these conversations, where you should be having these controversial conversations. I'm not saying that we should have like actual Nazis on college campus or people like that, but college is, that's where you have these discussions and you disagree and you stay something dumb in class because that's a safe environment where you can then be taught by a teacher like what the actual logic is there.

I mean, I said a lot of dumb things when I rose my hand in college classes. So I just think that college should be a place where you can learn new things, stay dumb things, have debates and be wrong. And when the Trump admin tries to remove courses or in a top-down way, change dumb things, have debates and be wrong. And when the Trump admin tries to remove courses or in a top-down way change the curriculum, that stifles the type of debate that creates a really strong critical next generation. Yeah, I agree with that. By the way, I'm just curious where that $220 million settlement is going to go. Because, you know, if you're talking about anti-Semitism and the basis for this withholding of government grants

to Columbia or to Harvard and so on, well, shouldn't then maybe the Jewish students who were unable to get to class because they were being blocked by these protesters? Shouldn't there be some compensation to them? Shouldn't there be, you know, maybe to, maybe a nice donation to the Chabad at the school or maybe to the Hillel organization or something?

I'm just not really sure. Great, you got a settlement. That would make too much sense. What's the settlement for? We could also just reallocate it to abuse minorities at alligator alcatraz. It would make too much sense to help students. Adam Ochler, thank you so much

for joining. I have to figure something out to do together. Get up onto a stage. I'll come out to Chicago, you come to New York, whatever it might be. But we got to go into the areas that are red, or at least purple. All right? Because it's extremely important. It's important to have those conversations that people aren't having. People on our side for a while have been too finger waggy, shutting down conversation, kind of condescending. But you can talk to your fellow Americans without being condescending. And I think we should do that.

So thank you for having me on. I hope the audience enjoys the cross-generation chat and we'll do it again soon. Anytime. Thanks, Adam.