The Megyn Kelly Show - What the Epstein Files REVEAL About Blackmail and Connections, and Nancy Guthrie Latest, with Jashinsky, Grim, Shellenberger, and More | Ep. 1255

Episode Date: February 18, 2026

Megyn Kelly discusses what we've learned so far from the millions of documents in the "Epstein Files," with Emily Jashinsky, host of "After Party," Ryan Grim, reporter for Drop Site News, and Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public.News, . They discuss whether there's evidence of sex trafficking, connections to powerful and famous men, open questions still about how Epstein really made so much money, how the Epstein emails have exposed the corruption of our ruling elites, the shocking Epstein connections we've seen now on full display, what we've learned about Epstein and girls and young women, the questions about coercion and criminal activity,  the disturbing references to the “p-word” in the Epstein Files, evidence of potential blackmail of Bill Gates in the emails, what we learned about Epstein’s Israel connections, the truth about his ties to Ehud Barak, how the Epstein Files showed Howard Lutnick was to truthful about his relationship with Epstein, Hillary Clinton downplaying her and Bill's connections to Epstein, and more. Then Jim Fitzgerald and Maureen O'Connell, former FBI agents, and Will Geddes, security expert, join to discuss the potential for genetic genealogy to help play a role in solving the Nancy Guthrie case, whether additional security videos could come from the neighbor's house, Sheriff Nanos back doing media interviews, the bizarre answers he's given and mixed messages over the past couple weeks, breaking news on strange Google searches originating from Arizona for Nancy Guthrie’s address and Savannah's salary, why this finding could be a big break in the case, and more. Subscribe now to Emily's "After Party":Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/after-party-with-emily-jashinsky/id1821493726Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0szVa30NjGYsyIzzBoBCtJYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@AfterPartyEmily?sub_confirmation=1 Grim- https://www.dropsitenews.com/Shellenberger- https://www.public.news/O'Connell- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/best-case-worst-case/id1240002929Fitzgerald-https://www.youtube.com/@ColdRedPodcast-tb2lb/featuredGeddes- https://www.icpgroupcompanies.com/index.html Sundays for Dogs: Upgrade your dog’s food without the hassle—try Sundays for Dogs and get 50% off your first order at https://sundaysfordogs.com/MEGYN50 or use code MEGYN50 at checkout.Done with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.com & tell them Megyn Kelly sent you!PureTalk: Tired of big wireless prices? Switch to PureTalk for unlimited talk and text for $25/month—dial #250 and say MEGYN KELLY for 50% off your first month.Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. We have a big extended show today. We're going to have a full breakdown of the latest in the Nancy Guthrie case coming up in two hours. But we are devoting the live portion, the first two hours of our live portion, to the Epstein files. There's been so much happening as a result of these documents that were released a few weeks back. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced over the weekend just this past weekend that the Department of Justice has made public, quote, all files, required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which President Trump signed into law just a few months ago on November 19th. There have been questions about whether that's true. She says it is. In total, there are more than 3.5 million pages of documents, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images in the latest dump.

You can search them for yourself on justice.gov slash Epstein, which we've been doing here as a team for the past week. Basically, every celebrity or public figure you can think of comes up in this search. And you have to be very careful, very careful about it, because what the FBI did originally, or what the DOJ did when they released this was they released a whole list of complaints received by the FBI about just anybody. So, like, anybody who could have called up during the Trump presidency and been like, Trump raped me, and they would put that down. It would be listed in the FBI database of complaints about various people. You have to say, it happened in Epstein's Mansion or what have you, and it'd be in there. And they released that, like it was real. And people were going with it all

over the Internet. It was like, okay, we've really gone too far on releasing every document, but that's what the law required. That's what they did. And, you know, there are irresponsible people who took all of those complaints like they were real, even the ones that said, not credible, not credible, not credible, not credible. And that's unfortunate. But there is a lot of very interesting stuff in here. As I say, it's going to take years to go through all of this. We could still be getting major revelations for months, and we will follow up when and if we do. But from what we have seen so far, these documents do provide a window into the global elite and how they behave when they think no one's watching.

It's really not great. It's not great at all. Here's the Daily Podcast last week. Do these new documents shed any light on the question of whether or not Jeffrey Epstein ran a pedophilic ring that trafficked underage girls to those around him? In short, the answer is no. Basically, the 14 and 15 and 16-year-old girls that we've heard about were largely recruited for him. But what's important to understand, again, the first time he went to jail in the mid-late 2000s, it's on charges that he is soliciting underage girls to get massages. And when he gets out of jail, he appears to change tactics.

He seems to decide he's going to be more careful about the law. What we see is a form of trafficking after he gets out of prison that relies mostly, on women who were a bit older, 18 and 19-year-old women from Eastern Europe than the victims we know about from before he died. I mean, they were a bit older, but they were still equally vulnerable in a different way with a different legal definition. All right. So that's interesting. That was the New York Times doing its deep dive in a podcast that I've actually found very helpful. And they're saying there's just no evidence in here of a pedophile ring. And they point out in that same podcast that there was even a. prosecution memo that was contained in the latest batch of documents where the prosecutor said what they looked at and what they did not find was evidence of a pedophile ring, though they did

look. And they did find 14, 15, and 16 year old girls that were recruited for Epstein, not for a web of friends, but for Epstein prior to his initial plea deal, okay, prior to the initial plea deal that he struck in 2008 when Dershowitz was his lawyer. So he was abusing these young teenage girls back then. And he, that's what he struck the plea deal for. That's what became so controversial because then in 2018, the Miami Herald dropped its reporting saying there were dozens of girls. And he only had to answer for like two. Thanks to Alan, Alan, Alan did what, you know, defense lawyers are supposed to do. It's not his fault. and it's the prosecution's fault for agreeing to it without consulting the victims, by the way,

which became a huge deal. But it does appear, I haven't gone through all the documents, but it does appear from the New York Times reporting that after his plea deal, Epstein got smarter and started sticking to girls who were of age and mostly Russians or Eastern Europeans. And I have to tell you, it's a very interesting question because obviously that's a totally different kettle of fish than a 14-year-old girl because now you're an adult in the eyes of the law. And there's no question of consent, really. I mean, you're capable of consenting when you're 19 years old. But you are still capable of being sex trafficked.

I mean, the whole case against P. Diddy revolved around whether he had sex trafficked Cassie and other of his girlfriends by strong-arming things. them into sex with these sex workers. Ultimately, the jury did not find him guilty of that. But we had a whole prosecution, the implicit acceptance of which was it can be done to an adult woman who's even in a love relationship with the defendant. I mean, it can be done. So it's not really an answer to whether Jeffrey Epstein was a sex trafficker to say all of his alleged victims were of age when he was having whatever relationship he was having with them. It's a more complex issue than that legally. But I do think we need to get into this with that right mindset.

The young teen thing, according to the New York Times, which has had a whole team going through all these documents, they say appears to have stopped. after he got arrested and struck that initial plea deal in 08. Then he goes forward with the of age Russians and Eastern Europeans. And now there is a question about whether they were serially sex trafficked by Epstein to himself and to his friends. And I have to say there's a lot of evidence of that in there. Now, were they all sex traffic victims or were some just gold diggers?

That's also possible. I mean, the difference between a gold digger and a sex. trafficking victim is force. Coercion. A gold digger is not there by coercion. She wants his dough, so she gives it up. I know a lot of women who make that same choice. I've known throughout my adult life, a lot of women who decide to make that same

choice. They don't marry for love. They marry for dough. Or they just want to be with the richest guy they can find. And they don't really care whether he loves them or not. they give it up because they want to be taken care of. All right. Now that's, you might call it a gold digger.

You might call it whatever, a deal. That's an adult woman's choice. Wouldn't be my choice, but it's an adult woman's choice. But when you find an adult woman 18 or above and you threaten her that if she doesn't go with your friend, let's say Prince Andrew, just to pick a name out of the air, you're going to punish her. You're going to cost her job opportunities. You're going to publicly humiliate her. You could possibly release the naked tape of her.

Now you're talking coercion. And the person is not necessarily there of her own free will. And that could convert you into a sex trafficker. And those are the allegations against Diddy. Remember? It was like when Cassie wants to be with you, there's some evidence she wanted to participate in these freakoffs. But then there's a lot of evidence that she no longer did.

either during the freak off itself, you know, she ran out of the will to do it. And from that point forward, when you beat her in the back room to make her go back out there, or, you know, over a period of years, it no longer became appealing to her. Force and coercion was used, which is why that became a sex trafficking case. The jury didn't buy it. They said, uh, she got a lot of, I think they frankly put her more in the field of the gold digger. Not a nice term, but you know what I'm saying. And so this to me, what these documents are showing so far is, okay, not a pedophile ring,

but a sex trafficker, an alleged sex trafficker, and unlike with the 14 and 15-year-olds who he was getting for himself to perform these X-rated massages on himself with the so-called happy ending. And I know, as I told you, I have a source who's very well connected in this case, who is very well connected to Epstein, was. and this source has told me that Epstein used to get the young girls to go find the next young girl. And he would pay them. And it would always be girls who were from the wrong side of the tracks who needed money. And they would do it. He wasn't having sex with them. He was, you know, getting a whatever.

They were getting him to finish off with their hand or sometimes oral sex. And that was his MO, if you will. in the first go-round. And then his M.O. when he got more connected, when he became richer, was focused more on these other older girls and on this enormous circle of influence that he had been building. And I don't know if there's ever been somebody as well connected as Jeffrey Epstein, from Prince Andrew to President Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, when he was still a young playboy businessman. I mean, thank God for Donald Trump. He ended all relationship with Jeffrey Epstein very, very early on and Epstein's, you know, rise to fame and wealth.

It was like around 2005, I think it was. And so there's almost nothing. There are some references to Trump, but like not involving all that stuff that happened, you know, from leading up to 2008 and thereafter. Trump's really not in here on that stuff. There's weird other allegations, like I said, about the FBI document.

But this is not what I've seen about Donald Trump. It is about tons of rich men. in America and overseas. Tons who not only wanted Epstein's advice financially, they wanted his little love letters like Lauren Summers when he was, you know, the president of Harvard, unlike how to get the girl to call him back. Remember, the woman he was having the affair with, wasn't sure she liked him. There's tons of people like that. In that same New York Times podcast on the Daily, they were pointing out Deepak Chopra, Deepak Chopra was having this intense back and forth with Epstein and Deepak said to Jeffrey Epstein, quote,

How can I be sure that I'm eternal? Oh my God. People go to that guy as though he's a guru with all sorts of deep life advice, the meaning of life and so on. And he was getting it from Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, my God. Holy shit. That's a big reveal.

Wow. They also talk about Prince Andrew, who will get to in a second, where he opens up. this is the New York Times about the restraints of royal life and how difficult it can be to be a royal wow and the person he's opening up to is not his therapist or a family member it is Jeffrey Epstein in another email quoting here from the Times Epstein is arranging for Prince Andrew to meet a woman and he tells he tells Andrew she's 26 Russian clever beautiful trustworthy and Andrew responds sounding like a high school boy with a crush what have you told her about me. Have you given her my email? It's amazing. It is amazing, like the amount of connections he had.

And lots of these people have been lying about how close they were Jeffrey Epstein. Most of them, I would venture to say, have been lying or at least downplaying their relationship with him, which I understand, given how toxic that name is now, but it really doesn't do anybody any good, especially, I mean, like some of the people lied and we're going to get to them by name. knowing that these files were about to come out, like, how dumb is that? It's one thing to be a liar, but like a dumb liar. That's a bad combo, bud, I mean, a really bad combo. And they all have billions. Unlike you and me, they have billions. And so they've had a lifetime of getting away with it and of thinking they can behave with impunity. And that, that in large part is what

this story is about. So no pedophile ring that we know of, no direct indication of blackmail operation either that we know of. We'll talk about whether there is circumstantial evidence of it. And no smoking gun either, by the way, that he was employed directly by an intelligence agency. Although, that's not what B.B. Netanyahu says. He says he was Israeli intelligence and worked for Ahu Barak. So may not be in the documents, but it is in B.B. Netanyahu's hand, the truth. but there is still a great mystery about how he became so rich. Non-college graduate from Coney Island, no family connections, and super close ultimately to the likes of Bill Clinton. And not just any Bill Clinton, the immediate post-presidency,

Bill Clinton, 2001 to 2004, was when Bill Clinton kept going on his jet 17 times. I mean, this is the height of Bill Clinton's post-presidential power. and those two were BFFs. It's amazing. And not to mention the years with Donald Trump, as I said. How he stayed so close, Epstein did, to the likes of Bill Gates, who really just comes off so poorly in all this. Steve Bannon and, as I say, Prince Andrew, even after he had to register as a sex offender

for one crime that was solicitation of a minor for prostitution, which is not a thing. A minor cannot be a prostitute. They can only be a victim of a perverted older man, which is absolutely what Jeffrey Epstein was. The fallout for just being associated with Epstein has been swift for some. I mean, I don't know. Hasn't been swift? It's been a long time coming, I would say. Former Obama White House counsel, Catherine Rumler, she resigned from her role as Goldman Sachs top lawyer.

We told you about, we were the ones who broke that news. Do you remember right here on this show when I told you about the news about how tight Steve Bannon had been to Jeffrey Epstein, who's a friend of mine? It brought me no joy to report that news, but I did it because it's my job. And we named, for the first time right here on the Megan Kelly show, former Obama White House counsel, Catherine Rumler, as a close confidant of Jeffrey Epstein. and we saw her all over his correspondence after having seen her in a tape. We saw her or heard her in an audio tape that we were provided. Remember a couple years ago? And I said this year, I think you're going to hear from Jeffrey Epstein directly.

And then I later told you it was on tape. Tapes exist out there. Turns out Steve Bannon has 15 hours of them. 15 hours of them. That's how he is defending his behavior with Epstein, saying it was. was all as part of his role as a filmmaker, which he actually is, and a journalist trying to get all this tape, which he says is going to result in a film to be released within the next year. In any event, she was very tight with him. If you read any of this correspondence, you'll see that

she loved Jeffrey Epstein. And, okay, you should come out and say we were friends. I didn't know he's a dirtbag. It was hard because she was super friendly with him post the Miami Herald investigation. And she couldn't say that. I guess if I were, Catherine and I would have said, let me be honest, I didn't believe that he was some mass pedophile or sex trafficker. I didn't believe it. I knew he had pleaded out these two ultimately minor counts in 2008. Then I saw the Miami Herald thing and I thought it was an unfair hit piece by a fucking lunatic, Julie Brown, who's a hard leftist. And I didn't, she's a lunatic because she's so partisan. That's the why I say that. She's a decent reporter. but she's just so nasty. She'll only go on these left-wing podcasts.

She won't talk to a conservative audience and let her reporting be tested or herself be tested, which is very undermining. Anyway, maybe that's what Rumler thought. I don't trust Julie K. Brown. I don't believe in her. I actually have known Jeffrey for a long time

and I believe in him. Oh my God, I was so wrong. That would be a way out. But instead, all these people downplay or they deny or they go underground, well, she's caught red-handed now that we've seen the papers. And she's out of her job as the Goldman Sachs top lawyer because it's all in black and white now.

The prominent CEO in charge of Dubai's ports. This guy's very well known, apparently, has got tons of dough. He lost his job after the files showed he emailed Epstein about women. I mean, that underplays what's in the files about him. He didn't just email Epstein about women. He's talking about dreaming about the Russian woman again and, like, the age of the woman. and we'll get into it. And Casey Wasserman, the chairman of the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, is now facing calls to step down after having already announced he's going to sell his agency in the wake of a scandal,

this scandal involving his name in the Epstein files, for having flirtatious emails with Epstein's partner in crime, Galane Maxwell, all the way back in 2003. That's ridiculous. I don't, like I, unless there's something more, I don't get that controversy. In 2003, he was supposed to Karnack his way through to understanding when nobody knew back then that Jeffrey Epstein was a sex trafficker and Galane Maxwell helped him and actually did some bad things or sell it like he was supposed to know that. I don't, that's a weird one. There's a lot of weird ones. Part of this thing feels Salem witch-hunting. And we don't want to go there, okay? We already made that mistake, the original time in Salem. And then again in the Me Too era, like, can we not like just assume

everybody's a pedophile just because their name might show up in the Epstein files? Okay. Now, let's not presume every single one of these women who says she's a victim is a woman who's been a victim either. Like, normally those claims have to be tested in law. And the vast majority of them have not been. Now, in the women's defense, he's dead. So it's kind of hard. But let's be clear. The women should have to be identified, in my view.

I don't agree with the anonymity of this release. They blacked out all the women's names. Okay, so we just have to accept victim. But we get to hear the guy's names, but not the one. That's not fair. That's basic due process being denied to the men whose names are in here. In any event, one thing's clear. President Trump says he's been exonerated and that it's the Clintons who have been

wrapped up further in the scandal. And he's not wrong. I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. They went in hoping that they're finding and found just the opposite. And I've been totally exonerated. In fact, Jeffrey Epstein was fighting that I don't get elected with some author, a sleazebag, by the way.

And I've been totally exonerated. No, no. They're getting pulled in. And that's their problem. I don't know. They've got to see what happens. But I watched her in Munich. And she seriously has Trump derangement syndrome.

Well, I mean, how is he wrong? But perhaps none of these global elites and celebrities have much to worry about beyond reputational damage. because Deputy Attorney Todd Blanche signaled earlier this month, no further prosecutions are coming. I can't talk about any investigations, but I will say the following, which is that in July, the Department of Justice said that we had reviewed the files, the quote Epstein files,

and there was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody. We then released over 3.5 million pieces of paper, which the entire world can look at now and see if we got it wrong. And so it's not performative, and I respectfully disagree with that statement. We were ordered to do so by Congress and then by the President of the United States,

and that's what we did. And let me, you know, I said it on Friday. This Justice Department, the FBI, DHS, we have gone after more sex traffickers, more child pornographers, more men who have done harm to children and young women than any administration in history. And so we need to separate those two ideas,

the fact that there's the Epstein files and whether there's anybody there that we can go after, and the work that we are doing every day, which is extraordinary, and we will continue to do that. Joining me now for reaction and additional insights, our three guests who have been meticulously going through the Epstein files to determine what they do and do not show.

MK Media Zone, Emily Jashinsky, she hosts After Party with Emily Jashinsky. Program note for you, it's now live at 9 p.m. Eastern on YouTube on Mondays and Wednesdays, days. 9 p.m., that's tonight at 9 p.m. used to be 10.30, right? And now it's nine because she's tired, just like the rest of us. And she also hosts the MK wrap-up show right here on Sirius XM after our show. We also have Ryan Grimm, counterpoints co-host and reporter for

DropSight News and Michael Schellenberger, founder of the Public News Substack. All three have broken major stories from the file so far and are great journalists. And they join me now for a deep dive. When it comes to your dogs, why does there often seem to be compromised when it comes to their food? It's either fresh and healthy or easy to store and serve. But with Sundays for dogs, you can get both. Founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, a veterinarian and mom, who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics. She designed Sundays, air-dried real food made in a human-food-grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you would use to cook for yourself and your family. Everybody's clean. It's packed with real meat, fruits, and veggies. No weird ingredients, no fillers. And best of all, just scoop it and serve it. No freezer, no thawing, no prep, no mess. Just nutrient-rich food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days. Consider making the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for Dogs.com slash Megan 50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code Megan 50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for Dogs.

dot com slash Megan 50. Guys, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having us. Yeah, you got it. Okay, so how do you like my summary of where we are? Ryan, let me start with you because we don't get to talk to you that often. How do you like my summary of what we've gleaned from the files so far and feel free to adden to it?

Yeah, there's a lot to unpack in that summary. One thing I'd pick up on is this complaint that we're now seeing, and I think we can talk about this a bunch, complaint that we're seeing from some elites about, a lack of due process and is this is this actually a kind of a moral panic is this are people getting caught up in this who don't deserve to and we there's that conversation and then there's also the the why like if let's say you believe that that is true why is that happening and i think and i would put forward that it's because the public recognizes that there is an elite class which you know Assoff and Rokana have called the Epstein class, which is beyond accountability.

It operates with total impunity. And so the public is left with only their ability to generate so much outrage that it produces some consequences for some people. But because there are no defined mechanisms of accountability, it's not like the public, you know, has an opportunity to say, okay, we're going to prosecute this person. We're going to let them go through these different stages of due process. They can present evidence. We'll present evidence to go to a jury. Like, that doesn't.

Nobody believes that that exists. We have this class. It's a global class that exists outside of democracy. And that, you know, if you believe that some people are going to go down for this unfairly, like, that is why. And something then needs to be done about that. There's this old saying that, you know, we'll either get, you know, socialism or barbarism. In this case, I would say you either get accountability or barbarism or democracy or barbarism. And so if if there are elites right now who don't like what they think of as a barbaric response to the barbaric behavior that the public has seen going on, you know, with impunity inside these elite circles, then you need to address the fact that there is. this class that operates separately from all of us. It needs to be broken up. It can't exist. We don't have a democratic government if a class like this can exist. That's very interesting, Emily, because this, at its heart, the whole Epstein scandal is about,

I think, a revulsion with this kind of elitism. You know, there is, I think, most Americans are feeling that. I completely agree. And a lot of Ryan's reporting at DropSight that I'm sure he'll talk about goes into how anti-democratic a lot of the activities that were being organized by Jeffrey Epstein, by Ehud Barak, by many, many other people. I mean, one of the more interesting things, if you spend time in the Justice Department's library, is you just kind of get a sense of the social circle around Jeffrey Epstein, who's emailing him most, and also J-mail over at DropSite. You can literally be in a facsimile of his inbox. And so you see the circle of people like Reed Hoffman, Bill Gates. Bill Gates is second in command, essentially.

the Norwegian Prime Minister who is now in big trouble. Tom Pritzker, who resigned as executive chair of Hyatt just yesterday, Larry Summers, Kathy Rumler being a very good example, Jess Staley. I mean, this is his like tight inner ring. And they're making decisions about global politics and business like it's a sandbox that they're playing in. And you see, I mean, there are all kinds of like specific examples. But the complete picture is just how undemocratic the process is in some of these decisions that they were making. And it's completely disgusting how flippant they are about some of those decisions, how much they profited from some of those decisions, as Ryan has reported out. And yeah, the evidence is, if you're a member of the public and you're looking at this and you felt

already disillusioned about the state of America, you're going to leave feeling even more disillusioned. Mm-hmm. I'm like, I know I don't want to beat up too much on Deepak Chopra, Michael, but it is, it's just perfect for this story that even that guy was in there looking to Epstein for advice on whether he's eternal. Your take on these files and what we've seen.

Yeah, hey, Megan, great to be with you guys. And yeah, I mean, I agree with Emily and Ryan. I mean, and you, I mean, this is a glimpse into the serious corruption of our ruling elites. The behavior here is just awful. There's no other word for it. I do think that we have to distinguish

between two separate, two different sets of things. And I think one is Epstein's relationships with the intelligence community, his relationships with the Department of Justice. I think one of the most important of these messages that we saw in the most recent release is the fact that Epstein was paid $25 million by Ariana de Rothschild to settle a Department of Justice claim. And then another $10 million went to his attorney and friend, Catherine Rumler, was Obama, who was the, Rumler. Yeah, that was the, you know, U.S. attorney for, or was the White House attorney

under Barack Obama, she just stepped down from Golden Sacks. What's going on there exactly? I mean, we also have, you know, she was, according to that email, it looked like she was facing an $85 million fine, potentially. And somehow Epstein and Rumler, his BFF, intervened to get it cut down to 45 million. And so she then paid him 25 and Rumler 10. But Rumler all along has been like, I barely knew him. Oh, really? Okay. I don't usually get $10 million from people I barely know. But OK.

Well, Rumler was also exchanging, sorry, but she was also exchanging like extremely intimate emails with Epstein about her personal life. And in addition to all kinds of professional stuff. But that is obviously facially ridiculous. And she's all over. She's all over. She's all over these tapes. She's advising Epstein on how to rehab. have his image. And they do a mock 60 minutes type sit down where Bannon, like, cross-examines him. She's totally in on it. She wants him to be rehabilitated. This is post the Miami Herald reporting in 2018. Michael, you were saying, sorry, I interrupted you. Oh, no, it's okay. Yeah, I mean, so, I mean, I think there's this, you know, he also talked about Bill Barr as CIA. We know, you know, thanks in part to Ryan's reporting, we know that Epstein, you know, as a client, Adnan Khashoggi, who was in, who was a central player in the Iran-Contra. the illegal Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s involving that the CIA oversaw.

You know, Rumler emailed Epstein to say that she got this, you know, the highest award from within the CIA. That's a secret award, by the way. And she felt comfortable telling Epstein about it. Epstein referred to going into an email. What's that? On an open email. Right.

Yeah. Right after, by the way, she, her job in the Obama White House, I'm sorry, keeping right, but her job in the Obama White House was to at one point deal with the fallout from the Snowden scandal. So she leaves the White House and then goes and gets an award from John Brennan at the CIA. And as Ryan said, as Ryan said, on an open email, Braggs the Epstein about it. Interesting sequence of a bunch of the torture report. She's looking for a little pat on the head, Ryan.

She's like, oh, oh, hey, look what I got daddy. And he doesn't respond. But give us contact with that, right? She also played a role. The White House suppressed the torture report. There was that there's even a Hollywood movie about it now. But, yeah, they put together this many hundred pages report about the torture that the U.S. had been engaged in during the Bush administration. And the Obama administration worked extremely hard to suppress it on behalf of Brennan and the CIA.

That was an intense mission that they undertook. And I would suspect that Rumbler's role in that also contributed to her winning this award. but, you know, sorry, Michael, you were. Yeah, no, I mean, so, I mean, I think that for me, the big story remains Epstein's relationship to the intelligence community, to the U.S. government. He had a fake passport in the 1980s. That's just not an obvious thing that someone would have working in finance. He refers repeatedly to going into a Saudi passport. What's that?

Was a Saudi passport, wasn't it? It was Austrian passport, but with a Saudi address. Right. Yes. Like, who gets that? How do, like, I'm sure all three of you have an extra passport of another guy. What is that? It's so crazy.

Can you just expand on this? But what is that? Because I was saying in the intro, you know, if you were just to read the articles about what's in these files, they wouldn't say that he was an asset to anybody. But B.B. Netanyahu came out and wrote that himself a couple of months ago. Yeah, I mean, it looks, it looks like he was somebody that was involved in, you know, was involved his whole career in being an expert at moving money around, hiding money, creating tax havens. Probably, I mean, we can't prove it, but I mean, I think he looks like he was

involved somehow in arranging finances during Iran-Contra, you know, potentially other, you know, intelligence or clandestine operations. That's why it's so frustrating is you really don't feel like we have the full picture at all yet. We just have these glimpses. You know, he talked about going into a skiff several times. At one point that he said at the skiff, my house, a skiff just stands for a secure compartmentalized information facility SCIF is the acronym. But that's not language I've ever heard used outside of either the intelligence community, intelligence gathering, congressional hearings, hearing from whistleblowers. So, you know, you kind of go, well, maybe he was just, you know, joking or using slang.

But all these things kind of point to a picture of a guy that was pretty close to the intelligence community. And so somebody that sort of sits at the intersection of the intelligence community, you know, finance and potentially criminal activity. And I thought it was interesting that he was a big advocate of a digital currency, Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, which are perfect for, you know, hiding money, moving money. So I think that's a whole. Especially back then. I mean, like now it's all in vogue. But back even to when he died, it wasn't nearly as big. Right. What would you say is that your biggest takeaway from having review the, yeah, you make your point, but then tell me what your biggest takeaway is, too. Yeah, well, my biggest takeaway is that he was, that he does seem to be

so involved with intelligence agencies throughout his career. And to add on to what Michael was saying, and just to give one one, blow your mind. So you know, Stan Pottinger, Stan Pottinger has gotten, you know, has become part of this story. He's the late Stan Pontger at this point, but he was a prominent attorney for Epstein survivors. You know, he was represented. You know, he was represented. along with Brad Edwards, the victims who were suing Jeffrey Epstein. One thing we found in the files is that back in 2009, Ponderger had emailed Epstein and said, hey, buddy, you know, keep your chin up. Basically, he said, you are one of the lines or something like, you're a lion. You're a true lion of the world. And people who are such lions are the ones that, you know,

are attacked by the world because, you know, they can't understand. your genius. He's like a Picasso or a Da Vinci of trafficking or whatever. And so, and he says, and it may be hard to imagine this, but we will one day be laughing about this. And I look forward to seeing you in New York when you're, when you're through all of this. So that's Stan Pontger. He then ends up becoming an attorney for the survivors. If you go back even further in time, he and Epstein were business partners in the early 1980s. They shared, as the New York Times reported and others have reported, they shared a penthouse office in New York in the early in 1980s, Pottinger, we know for certain, was moving money for the CIA during Iran-Contra.

So that's just one link that we have right there. He also was, Epstein was a protege of Douglas Lees, who was a British arms trafficker who was involved in Iran-Contra. Obviously, Robert Maxwell was like the banker for moving money around. Blaine's dad. During Iran-Contra, he knew, like he was associated with a lot of the like, key figures in Iran-Contra. And that's the exact time that he has this Austrian passport with a fake name and a Saudi address that would let him kind of move around. And then in the 90s, when the planes that were used by the CIA for Iran-Contra started taking on too much heat, they get moved. Half of them get sold off in a bankruptcy. The other half, get moved to Columbus,

Ohio to start trafficking apparel for Les Wexner. And our reporting shows that it was Epstein himself who brought those planes to Columbus, Ohio. So like, the links between that history and Epstein just run, you know, straight from the 80s through the 90s and then up, you know, and then up to today. So it wouldn't be surprising if that's kind of his background, why he'd be using terms like skiff and have associations with every CIA director and so on. Even though he never served in the military, there's nothing on his resume that would explain any of that. But boy, oh boy, he has a lot of connections for somebody who is allegedly not connected at all. Yeah. And for people who don't, for people, no, and I've realized a lot of

people don't know. Iran-Contra involved Israel as the middle, middleman. Like, Israel would send weapons to Iran and the U.S. would then replenish Israel's stuff. and Israel and the CIA separately had different slush funds so that like a lot of people like it's not called Iran-Israel contrary it's Iran-Contra but so a lot of people don't realize that Israel played the central role there and you go back and you're reading that history you're like it's just comical that they're for many many years making enormous amounts of money arming Iran because Iran was fighting Iraq and they considered Iraq to be a bigger threat to them than Iran and you know before this shows over we could be you know bombing Iran at the behest of Israel. Let's hope not. Emily, you were going to say something, but I just wanted to say, let's say, no, you go ahead. I'll get back to this. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot about, if you just search the files for like CIA, NSA,

you find that Epstein foiled himself in 2011, and the CIA gets back to him. He foiled himself at NSA, CIA FBI, and at least the CIA foyer, he's foyerying. So Freedom of Information Act, he's asking the CIA to produce any evidence basically of an affiliation with him, which is extremely interesting. It's a very odd thing to do. If you know you have had no affiliation, you have had no status as an asset with the CIA. That's already bizarre. There are a lot of emails, and this is Ryan and I with Mertaza Hussein reported this out at DropSite.

He was recruiting, and this is another huge. element that we saw amplified by the DOJ library emails release. We see so much more about his efforts to get engaged in bioengineering, biohacking. And so he was asking people to connect him with NSA. There's a calendar invite for Kathy Rumler and NSA and Jeffrey Epstein in the emails. There is evidence of other people offering up quote-unquote codebreakers, Israeli hackers, man named Dan Dubno, who used to be a producer at CBS. There are emails where he is offering up Epstein, NSA, or I'm sorry, Israeli codebreakers, also NSA codebreakers, because Epstein had this theory that people who are breaking codes

for NSA could also then, like, reverse engineer or hack into cells and, like, our genes and just go leaps and bounds forward in terms of bioengineering because he was very interested in bioengineering. And this is one of the grand conspiracy theories about him is that he was trying to produce lots and lots of offspring that were Jeffrey Epstein like and that he was trying to, you know, do eugenics. And there is like actually some evidence that he was significantly on a scientific level pursuing those ends and with people high up in the intelligence community. And by the way, here's exactly what Netanyahu posted. He reposted an article that argues new emails between Ehud Barak and Jeffrey Epstein should mean at a minimum an end to the widespread taboo of even asking questions about the billionaire sex offenders links to the Israeli state. Epstein brokered security deals for Israel, had a close friendship with one of its former prime ministers, Barack and military officials, and apparently even secretly involved himself in the country's elections.

If it were any other country, it would not be remotely scandalous to wonder out loud, what it could all mean. So, I mean, that's B.B. Netanyahu reposting that article about Epstein. Michael, I know you took a look at this, you know, his ties with intelligence, ties with the Justice Department. But you also have questions about his behavior with women, girls, and others. So what are the questions? Because I'm as open-minded as anybody to how dirty and disgusting Jeffrey Epstein was at any point in his adult life or otherwise. But I haven't seen anything in here supporting pedophile ring or even sex trafficking ring of underaged girls really at any point. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think it's important. I would like to be on the record saying that I do

think that this has become a moral panic. You know, I talk to, you know, people in my life, they think it's something different than it is. I mean, they think that they're praying on really young girls. And I know that you got into trouble for earlier for making the distinction, but I think it is important for people to understand the distinction there. And I just think a lot of the people that have, you know, come under fire or lost their jobs. Just to be clear, because a pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. It's, and the DSM-5 says under age 13, pre-pubescent. And then they have two other words for if you're into adolescent girls or a little older, like teenage girls, like it's, I can't remember what it is. It's just like pedophile, but with a different

prefix. But yeah, pedophile does not technically legally apply unless you, your thing is pre-pubescent children under the age of 13. Yeah, I mean, I think it's misleading from that perspective. I think it's also misleading. I mean, I think that there is this, you know, there's, there's an exchange between him and Tish, Steve Tish, where he sort of, he says, oh, I'm, you know, Tish is like, oh, I met this girl at your party. Can we connect? And then Epstein says, I'd rather not do this over email, let's talk about it over phone. I think that there is a picture of Epstein, you know, grooming young women, moving them to powerful men. But I don't think that that's not how he makes his money. You know, Mike Ben's, you know, says that girls grease deals is the way

you would think about. You'd have a lot of young women around to make it sort of attractive for people to want to hang out with them. But I mean, he's making his money through $25 million dollar fees to the Ross Childs, not, you know, by, you know, moving women around. But I will say, I do think that, look, there's awful, like, I think all these people are awful. Like, it's really important. I condemn it and this behavior is terrible. But is it, we are back to where we were with me too, where just any association with Epstein is enough to get you to have to, you know, step down from your position. And so I think we saw it with, you know, Pritzker, you know, like, there's no evidence of crimes. It's not.

even clear that he understood what was going on. You know, Fergie had to step down from a charity. I just think there's, we're at a place where people are just like, you know, the boards of these organizations are just like, we have to get rid of these people. And I do think that that's bad. And that's, that's, that's, that's, that's unethical. And we don't, we don't agree with that. So I understand the Rumler thing. Because she's in the position of being the top and most trusted law enforcement officer at Goldman Sachs, you know, I mean, she's, she's, she's the general counsel. the one whose integrity, judgment, and honesty matters literally the most of anybody at Goldman Sachs, and they deal with people's fortunes for a living. You cannot have somebody there who's lying

as much as she appears to have about her relationship with somebody as controversial as Epstein and who has the piss poor judgment to be the guy's BFF after, as a lawyer, seeing what he pleaded guilty to and seeing what was in that Miami hero. Like, I'm sorry, but there's just, she had to go, I'm sorry, I don't feel bad for Catherine Rumler at all. But I do think, like, Peter Attia has taken a big hit as a result of these Epstein files. And I haven't looked that one up in like a week or two since it hit. But my understanding on Peter Atia, the author of Outlived and he's a longevity guy now, he's been on the show, is he was friends with Epstein. He wrote him an email saying the problem with being friends with you is your real life is just so unbelievable and yet you can't talk to anybody about it.

Like I, Peter Atia cannot tell anyone about it. Right. Which doesn't suggest he saw Epstein with underage girls. It does suggest he'd seen some sort of debauchery, potentially. And the controversy was he was with Epstein and about to be with Epstein. I think as his son was born and in the maternity ward still with his wife, and he didn't go up to be with them. And, Megan, I mean, for me, I think, I mean, my reaction is sort of like. He stayed with Epstein.

Yeah. I mean, my reaction was like, are we going to get in there and try to figure out whether or not Peter Aetia did the right thing in his relationship with his wife. I mean, what are we doing here exactly? Like, that's, for me, it's a crime. I'm really glad that Barry Weiss and CBS has remained firm on this. We're not going to cancel Peter Aitia by presuming that we understand,

you know, what the whole situation was there with his wife. That's absurd. So I do think that's a great example. Well, the other thing, Michael, he admitted in his book to being a douchebag for a large period of his adult, you know, adult youth, if you will, with that term, you know, his younger adult years. He, his book lands in a way where you're like, oh my God, you know, like, you learn a lot about Peter. Did he confess to everything? No. But like, if you read his book, you knew he really had some serious issues earlier in his adult life.

It's like, I feel like this is, it's not a great story, but it really is between Peter and his family. I would, when on there. It doesn't, I would still put Peter on this show in a heartbeat. I think he's done a lot to help people with their wellness. But I also need to check myself on not having a double standard for, you know, Rumler who worked for Obama and Bannon, who I love. And I think he's great. You know, like I'm really trying to check myself on not judging people based on their partisan stripes. Go ahead, Emily.

Well, I mean, the stuff here, like one of the keywords, if you search the Epstein library for Visa, what it looks like is that Epstein was coordinating with modeling agencies, Jean-Luc Brunel, obviously, who died under relatively mysterious circumstances back in 2022 in a French prison. Jean-Luk Brunel, Epstein, he was procuring visas for women and then helping them out. That's why people resigned at Columbia University, because Epstein Greas's kids with like a $100,000 donation to $100,000 donation to Colombia, got one of these women into the dental school. And so he's procuring women, helping with visas, going through modeling agencies bringing them and then either they're his girlfriends or you can tell he's

corresponding with other men. I mean, here, let me just read from this email that I found last night, which is like lewd, but it is, so somebody asks him, basically someone says, I asked her, we don't know who her is, about girls in Moscow and Tokyo for me. Also, does she have any good girls in L.A., but I didn't mention you. And then they go on to say, now I'm finding P-word for you, Epstein says, something wrong with that. And then the guy responds, no one can beat your P-word network. So it's a known joke with this guy, at least, that Epstein had a P-word network. And what's interesting about that in the trafficking context is that if this is understood

to be prostitution in that you are coming to the United States, Epstein is greasing the skids to help you get this visa and help the modeling agency. and they're doing it for purely sexual purposes, that maybe it comes with other advantages, but it's really sexual. That you can see actual trafficking, potentially, a prostitution ring in that. And so one final point in that is when you go back to the original stories,

like the original Julie K. Brown story, the Palm Beach police do have women on the record that have spoken to the media since Courtney Wilde, who says she was 14 years old, and she was basically helping him run a pyramid scheme at her school, her school when she was still embraces. So there's, there is before and after and they are distinct, but the sexual stuff is bad and potentially very illegal too. Yeah. I know. Like I was saying, you can be trafficked even though you are of age. It's, it's happened to many women. Stand by,

I have to take a quick break, but there's a lot more to get into, Bill Clinton, Howard Lutnik, and more on the women, which we barely scratch the surface of. That's next. If you are stressed about getting out of debt, it's go time. This is one of those moments where timing matters. And let me tell you about done with debt. 2025 was a record year for them. People who collectively had more than 102 million in debt turned to these guys for help.

And right now, maybe the best time to negotiate settlements. Done with debt tracks credit card and loan company behavior. They're experienced at knowing who's negotiating and when and what it takes to get you the biggest reduction possible. Whether you are carrying 10,000 or 500,000 in debt, this may be the best chance you'll get all year. So consider scheduling a free consultation. It only takes a few minutes. Imagine waking up without that weight on your shoulders and doing it without taking out another loan or filing for bankruptcy. Dun with Debt helps you through the debt relief process so you keep more of your paycheck every month.

Go to done withdebt.com right now. That's done withdeat.com. Check it out at done, D-O-N-E with Debt, D-E-B-T dot com right now. We are back now with our Epstein Deepdive, Emily Jashinsky, Ryan Grimm, and Michael Schen. Shellingberger. So let's kick it off here on the women front. In that same New York Times podcast, they talk about the nature of the women who ultimately wound up within his reach. Here's thought four. As soon as he got out of jail in 2009 and possibly before, he was basically building or expanding a virtual harem, a pipeline of young women in their late teens and early 20s, who were mostly from Eastern Europe and Russia. He had scouts roving around these places to find him women, and every time he found a woman, he would ask them to find him more women. And so you might ask, okay, so why do these women comply?

The answer is that he had money and influence, and they usually had none. He bought them plane tickets. He provided them apartments. He offered to pay for college or dental school. He sent them to doctors or plastic surgeons. And most of all, he dangled a sense of opportunity and security. He had a place for them to stay. He had people for them to meet.

He would make introductions to modeling agencies or producers or rich men. And we can see in these emails, these varying levels of comfort on the part of the women. Some of them seem to take the arrangement at face value. They're trading sex for money or security or opportunity. I mean, there's not necessarily anything illegal about that, just for the record. Like, it goes back to the discussion at the top of the first hour, gold digger or sex trafficking. You do have to figure out whether there was force involved. Force, coercion, or fraud basically takes it from voluntary gold digging.

You know, I will sleep with you and be your Russian lover as long as you put me up in a hotel and introduce me to a bunch of modeling agencies and rich men. That's fine. I'm sorry, it's a tale as old as time, frankly. But if she is, she stops wanting to do that and you start threatening her, like I've got videotape of you, or I'm going to tell every. what you did or you better continue in this thing or else it can it can change into something that was legal and no longer is and certainly if from the get-go the woman felt like she had no choice

you can you can have problems so i just want to be clear on the law it's not it's not a slam dunk just because there was sort of a financial understanding at hand i'd like that's been happening since the dawn of time i've said that before emily can we talk about some of the things you tweeted out last night because there is a lot of discussion of the P-word. I think the audience knows what the P-word is, but it's another word for cat or kitty. And it's all over the Epstein emails. Yeah. So for example, just to the point you were you were just making, Megan, I found this 2015 email from some woman who at one point says, I appreciate things good happened. Thank you. English, clearly not her first language. Unfortunately, my impression is that becoming a mistress was the only one job proposition you were really serious about. I refused, so it meant all is over. She goes on to talk about how meeting Bill Gates or Woody Allen was great, but nobody will hire me just because I have nice pictures with them. There's also, and these are some of the most disturbing emails that I found, ample evidence of Epstein arranging for people to get what he says are P-word tests,

or go to the P-word doctor, and just like really disgusting terms. So, yeah, like he tells people to go get a P-word swab. He is with his assistant arranging gyno appointments for women to get antibiotics. There's one woman who tells him, be careful who you sleep with, those girls are infected because she seemingly has an infection. And so that gets to some of these legal questions about whether this was understood by the women to be prostitution, meaning money was exchanged for sex or if it was a relationship, a transactional relationship, but a relationship that didn't involve transactions of like legal prostitution.

And Megan, you would know way more about that than I would. But like you said, this stuff is, I mean, the library is riddled with examples of this stuff. I mean, I'll give you one example. We did a couple of in-depth shows on sex trafficking when I was at NBC. see. And the one woman's story that always stayed with me was she thought she was going out on a date with, she was of age. She thought she was going out on a date with her boyfriend. She had a daughter of her own, and that daughter was back at his apartment. And the two of them went out, and instead of driving her to dinner, he drove her to a hotel and said, go inside

and have sex with a guy in there and get the money. And she was shocked. was like, what do you mean? Absolutely not. I thought we're going on a date. And he hit her and said, go inside or else. And she did it. And she explained that she was afraid of him, but she was really afraid for her daughter, who was not in her possession. She thought she'd been going out on a date that night. And she had, the daughter was with somebody that he controlled. And that's how it started. And then they've got you. Like, once you do it once, then they're like, I'll tell everybody you're a prostitute and you had sex for money, which you did, you know. And then they start advertising you on, used to be back page. Now it's other things.

We shut that down. But in any event, that's sex trafficking. She did not voluntarily go in there and have sex with a John because she wanted to be a hooker. She did it because of force, fraud, and coercion. Now, this is something else, you know, like I say, like gold digging women, Anna Nicole Smith, do we really think she had it, she had the hots for that 95-year-old? man. Of course she didn't. She wanted his money. She wanted to be taken care of. Is it prostitution? Not exactly. It's more like gold digging. It's definitely not sex trafficking. There was no force, fraud or coercion. And so you got to ask yourself in all these, you know, situations. And it's individual. You have to go to individual. They would have had to had there been a legal trial.

How about this one? How about this one? How about this one? There's pretty likely, though, some fraud, like in the force fraud and conviction there. the chance that the recruiters that Epstein is using in Eastern Europe are going to these young women or late teens and being direct and honest about what they're signing up for is pretty pretty low. I think we can probably all agree with that. Well, and the visa applications too. Right. The visa and the modeling are where the fraud lies. they're getting a visa to do modeling.

The modeling company now controls that visa. They're not actually doing modeling. Like, let's not, like, maybe they get introduced to a couple of agents or something. No, you can hear it in that one moment's email that Emily just said. Like, I'm not going to get modeling jobs based on my pictures, my candids with Woody Allen at your home. Right. Yes. Right. It's wonderful to meet Bill Gates on the island, but yeah, nobody's going to hire me over that. Apparently it wasn't really that wonderful to meet Bill Gates. No, of course it wasn't.

I think she was being a little bit generous and facetious at the same time. Well, speaking of infections, I mean, that's one of the big takeaways or pieces of evidence, again, from this library that we now have access to, which is Epstein drafted an email to himself, where this brings blackmail into it potentially too. He seems to be threatening to blow the whistle on Bill Gates and is saying he helped Bill Gates procure antibiotics because he slept with a prostitutes. a Russian prostitute and needed to slip something to his then-wife, Melinda, in order to be surreptitious about it. And so that looks like Epstein was planning potentially, again, this was in his drafts, but he was planning potentially to blow the whistle for leverage over Bill Gates. Well, Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, because I think you've written on this, too, the Bill Gates potential blackmail thing. So this email that Jeffrey Epstein sent to himself or was in his drafts,

I don't know which, must have been sent to himself. And it's in like the voice of a Bill Gates worker, employee, who seems to be saying it would be terrible if this stuff I did for you got revealed, sir. It's going to be really bad if the world finds out, I got you STD antibiotics to slip into Melinda's food because you cheated on her with a hooker or with a sex trafficking person who had diseases in the hoochie. And your point, I think, has been, like, that that's potential blackmail. And didn't then Epstein and Gates invest in that guy's company, the guy, the employee in whose voice Epstein was allegedly writing this email?

Yeah, I mean, look, I will stress it's another case. Gates has denied all of this. And so I think it's just important to say we don't have evidence that anything in that email is true. It does appear that Epstein wrote that to be in the voice of Gates's, one of Gates's main advisors, somebody named Boris. Boris and Epstein had been exchanging emails because Boris was mad that Gates wasn't going to spring for this really expensive apartment penthouse for him in New York, and he was getting Epstein's advice on how to basically get what he wanted at just a purely materialistic level from Gates. So pretty tawdry stuff. But yeah, I mean,

I mean, it did, I think it was the first clearest piece of evidence that, you know, blackmail was, that there was some, you know, there's some evidence that there was some thinking around blackmail. You know, we also know now that there were hidden cameras. They talked, you know, he talked and there's a discussion in the email about him and planting hidden cameras. I was impressed by how aggressive Epstein was in trying to get with Gates. He also was advising Gates on how to, you know, raise money and have a donor advised fund and sort of trying to sort of coach Gates. But, you know, it's, that's another tough one. I mean, I have a lot of criticism of Bill Gates for some of his projects, but I do think he's been, you know, at this point, he's been me-toed in a way that I thought we sort of learned that we weren't going to do that anymore. You know, I will say, too, just on the issue of the grooming, and it is grooming in the sense that Epstein is grooming these young women, they then have sex with him. And it appears that then he turns them over to other men, which is how, which is how pimps groomed. room, you know, young women for prostitution. There's also evidence in those files that there was a lot of drugs being used and there were large quantities. At one point, there was a list of drugs that was being circulated. Again, I haven't, we can't verify whether that was really evidence

of widespread drug use. But it seems to me that there was plenty of evidence over many years to go after these guys and to, you know, to prosecute these crimes and investigate them more. And it didn't happen. I mean, obviously there was the initial conviction. and then, of course, they were beginning the second conviction, the second investigation. But it just seems like people look the other way, knowing full well what was going on. And I think we need to understand why that would be. And why did they do that? Did they investigate whether Bill Gates?

That's one of the big questions we all have. Did they investigate whether Bill Gates drugged his wife as soon as they saw that email? That's, it seems potentially to be evidence. Well, that's why the Bill Gates thing to me is it's at a higher level than just unsupported Me Too accusations. because Melinda Gates has weighed in. Melinda Gates gave an interview. Bill's now ex-wife. This happened, it was on NPR.

Just after the latest round, including that allegation, hit, she was on cam and was asked about the latest revelations, and here she is inside 18. The emails in the files suggest that Bill Gates had additional affairs and that he tried to get medication to treat a sexually transmitted infection, and that he was going to give you the medical. without you knowing. His representative has said all of this is false. It is not on you to have to respond to the details of that alleged behavior, but I wonder what your dominant emotion is

when you read these news articles with these details. Sad. Just unbelievable sadness. Unbelievably sadness, right? And again, I'm able to take my own sadness and look at those young girls and say, my God, how did they, how did that happen to those girls, right? And so for me, it's just sadness, sadness for, you know, I've left, I had to, I left my marriage, I had to leave my marriage, I wanted to leave my marriage, and so it's just sad. That's the truth, right? And And it's kind of like, at least for me, I've been able to move on in life. And I hope there's some justice for those now women, right? We see them standing up in front of microphones in D.C.

First of all, it's a very annoying verbal tick when people continue to say right after every point they make. If you are somebody out there who does that work on it. Go ahead, Michael. Yeah, I mean, look, I think that's a terrible exchange there. I mean, she sort of says, the reporter says, you know, the Gates is denied. this, but she's still sort of describing the email as though it's somehow verified. It's not. And then she says, just tell us your emotion. I think the right question was, did that happen? Did you have any evidence? Yeah. Do you believe this happened to you? Because it's kind of like, that's not,

I just think that that's, that's actually taking you down that Me Too road, which is like, hey, we don't really care about the facts. You're right. Just tell us how you feel emotionally. It's the P word. It's the P word way around asking the direct hard question, which is, do you believe this happened to you? Did you call up Bill Gates and asked him, ask him whether he did this right? Well, and there's another question. Boris Nikolich, who is the man whose voice, the email was written. And this is like Bill Gates's second in command. He's exchanging all kinds of emails with Epstein, tongue and cheek about women and the like. But he is also one of the people who Epstein was using to procure NSA sources to help him code break the human genome and to be involved in those types of projects. So did the government

investigate, whether the NSA was improperly involved in that type of scientific pursuit, or was it state-sanctioned? I mean, these are, given how much of the Gates Foundation and the Gates' personal office was state-sanctioned, that's a huge, huge question. We have no evidence that that's being investigated or was investigated, and the government's not saying, no, no, this was state-sanctioned, this is something that we do on the side, anything like that. But it's a huge open question. And just to correct, I'm not sure if there was an investment into this guy's company, but this is what I meant to reference per the Wall Street Journal. Epstein had threatened to expose Bill Gates's alleged affair with Russian bridge player Mila Antinova in 2017, purportedly because Bill Gates would not join a charitable fund.

The financier began with J.P. Morgan Chase. In any event, there does appear to be threatening behavior going on by Epstein. toward Gates and possibly others, Ryan, in order to get them to do what he wanted. And in that way, these women were useful to Jeffrey Epstein. And so we need to understand a couple of things. One is the context of his relationships with these intelligence agencies. And the other is that he and Ajo-Barrach were pioneers in a way of in the cyber surveillance industry. Like he and Barack opened doors for Israeli companies around the world to grow what has become

a truly like global panopticon of surveillance around the world. A lot of these Israeli companies have since been bought up by multinational companies. And so now they're embedded in all of the big tech infrastructure. The point is, Jeffrey Epstein knows a lot about operational security when it comes to communications. He also knew that he was either, you know, getting sued at any point or could be getting sued at any point over all manner. Look, he's got the victims coming after him, you know, since his conviction. And he's also got very shady gray area business dealings that he's doing constantly. And so he knows that his emails are, you know, routinely subject to subpoena, let alone observable by all the different foreign intelligence agencies that have an interest in him.

So what you get in his email is only what he is kind of. of roughly okay with people seeing. Yeah, so he wanted this to come out about Bill Gates. And when you also see oftentimes, hey, this is not for email, as Emily pointed out earlier. Like, you'll find that a decent amount of times in

the calls. So in the emails, we need to talk about this in person, he'll say. And so if he's ever going to do any blackmailing, like, it would be very difficult for you to believe that you would find it in these you know, JEE vacation at Gmail.

or anywhere else. What was he doing with Ehud Barak? I mean, was he, do you believe he was an Israeli intelligence asset or an American intelligence asset or somebody's intelligent asset? He was clearly a very, very valuable asset to Ahud Barak, and Ahud Barak was working directly with the Israeli intelligence community in growing the Israeli cyber weapons industry around the world. Let me just interrupt you and ask you, because I had a debate about this with Ben Shapiro over the summer.

At the Charlie Kirk event, Charlie asked me, do you think he was Intel, Jeffrey Epstein? And I said, it certainly looks that way. And he said, for whom? And I said, you'd have to guess Israel as one of the possibilities, given his relationship with Ehud Barak. Then Ben Shapiro came on my show. And then I was called an anti-Semite, and so was Charlie, just for literally just that. And then Ben Shapiro came on my show and said, he, He wasn't. He wasn't. Aahud Barak has denied it. And I remember I was like, oh, well, okay. I mean, that doesn't

really give us a final answer. And then that's why the B.B. Netanyahu piece putting out there, not that he was an intelligence asset for Israel, but saying he clearly was working with Ehud Barak on intelligence matters. And also saying it's fine to ask the question, which doesn't make you an anti-Semite, which I thought was very interesting for obvious reasons. But what you're saying now is that there's no question, he was working on Intel matters with Ehud Barak. That is utterly indisputable, and people can go to DropSight and look at our section called Epstein and Israel and go read a bunch of the different stories. Like, for instance, which I have back.

Yeah, so you've seen it. So he, you know, he sold cyber weapons infrastructure with Ahud Barak to Mongolia and then helped cut a state deal between Israel and Mongolia. So often these, often these cyber weapons deals then are fought. followed by, you know, something dangled by the state of Israel itself. The same thing happened in Ivory Coast. Just on Tuesday, we put a story out. Wait, dumb that down for me.

So basically, Ehud Barak would work with Israeli intelligence community and a private company, oftentimes, say, Paragon, which is one where he's, you know, top official at, which is one of the biggest kind of cyber surveillance companies in the world. It would sort of be like Palantir, Lockheed Martin. Ryan was just explaining this to me this morning. Yeah, a rival of one of those. So then he would go to Mongolia and say, look, look, see you're having some, or Irieu coast. So you're having a lot of trouble here. Like, I see protests in the streets. You've got a lot of dissent.

Like, we have a level of surveillance technology that is far and above, you know, what our competitors can offer. And their selling point is always, it's tested on Palestinians. Like, you've seen our system of occupation in the West Bank and in Gaza. Is that not quite impressive the way that we were able to lock that down? We have developed extraordinary technology as a result of that. And so then you meet with the Mongolian president. They actually met literally in Davos and then also traveled to Mongolia. And then within months of that, then Israel strikes up a secure.

partnership with the state of Mongolia. So it's not just a, you know, intelligence community to intelligence company to Mongolia relationship. It's then state to state, Israel to Mongolia. And so they've done, they did this with. All facilitated by Epstein and Ehud Barak. Right. Right. And Ryan, okay. I get it. Ryan, you should mention what you, you just scooped, this big story about the apartment. This is, this is a very interesting one that we just, um, just published over at drop site. So at least in 2016 and 2017, but probably much beyond that, the Israeli permanent mission at the UN was responsible for security at Jeffrey Epstein's apartment. That's in, that's according to emails that we found in the files.

So I have been reliably told that you are an anti-Semite if you look at all into Jeffrey Epstein's connections to Ehud, Barack or Israel. Ryan, so you just tread carefully. So what's probably going on here, so this is related to Ehud Barak staying for such long, extended periods of time in his apartment, which undercuts Ayud Barak's previous argument that I barely know the guy. I have no relationship. He was staying so much in the apartment that the Israelis literally took over security

for the apartment. So the maids and any guests that went in and out of the apartment had to go through background checks and had to be confirmed and coordinated with the Israeli consulate at the at the UN. And at one point, all the time or just when Ehud Barak was there? It seems like all, it seems like all the time because there's a, the handler, this guy named Rafi, who's in the emails, he turns over and you see Barack's wife, like, all of a sudden she's getting texted by another Israeli official. And he's like, oh, yeah, I have, I have the file now. Let, you know, let me know who, you know, who's going in and who's going out.

We're going to, you know, we're, you know, and Epstein approves like drilling of holes to put in the security equipment. It can be controlled remotely. So that's at least 2016, 2017. And so that's a level of coordination and connection between the Israeli government and Barack and Epstein that, you know, undercuts a lot of what has been said in the past. Netanyahu also said, I think it was even this week, he said, you know, his friendship with and his relationship with Barack shows. that actually he had nothing to do with Israel because Aved Barak is, you know, pals around with far-left anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, you know, radicals. It's like, well, how many, you know, anti-Zionist radicals is the U.S.,

is the Israeli government kind of providing security for when they're staying at Epstein's apartment? So it kind of undercuts to that as well. And he served as, you know, Netanyahu's his Minister of Defense in 2013 as well. They were political rivals. But now they don't like each other. But now those two don't like each other at all. But which is why, Bibi, you got all sorts of heat after he tweeted out that article saying that Epstein clearly was working for Ehud Barak and that it's totally fine to ask whether he was Israeli intelligence. And now he's kind of like being like, well, he wasn't working for the Israelis because he was working for Ehud Barak.

It was like, okay, whatever. These two don't like each other. But the bottom line is you can ask whatever the fuck you want. I'm sorry. I'm sick of people trying to word police everybody. It's like you can ask these. questions. These are fine questions for any reporter to ask when trying to figure out who and what Jeffrey Epstein was and eventually we'll know the truth. We're starting to know the truth right now.

Let's keep going because there's some other people in there I want to get to. And that brings me to Bill Clinton, who it looks like on the Epstein plane 17 times, that's a lot, or 16 times, agreeing to a CNN analysis, he denies ever having visited Epstein's Island and says that he cut ties with Epstein before he was charged in 2006. He pleaded guilty in 2008 and didn't know about his crimes.

That's what Clinton says. Now, he's going to be deposed by the House Overset Committee at the end of this month, so that'll be interesting. But there's a lot in here about Bill Clinton in these files, like the picture of him,

This came out in the previous dump, which was a couple weeks prior to this one, in the hot tub with some girl with their face blacked out. I mean, like, I don't know who that girl was or anything. I'm just saying, like, Bill Clinton seemed to be really tight with Jeffrey Epstein. Now he wants, just like Bill Gates, to act like he barely knew him. What do we glean about Bill Clinton from these emails and documents? Anyone? Yeah, I'll jump in, Megan. I mean, I think it's important to keep in mind also that Epstein appears, I believe, 17 times on the White House logs.

when Clinton is president. In 1992, the BuzzFeed reported on this, actually, that in 1992, the State Department seized a five-story mansion overlooking Central Park from the Iranian government and then rented it to Jeffrey Epstein until 1997. Apparently then the State Department went to court against Epstein for this. But I mean, so, I mean, I think the other thing I was to say about Clinton, the other thing I'm so struck is how comfortable everybody was having their photograph taken, you have to have, if you're out there cavorting with, you know, young women in the way that they were, you have to be very trusting in Epstein. And that's one of the things I'm so struck by is Epstein was just such a master manipulator. He was constantly in service of everybody.

He raised money for Larry Summers' wife. He was always sort of two steps ahead knowing how do I get Larry Summers to be able to spend more time here? I have to, you know, make his wife feel good about me. Epstein was just a master of it. And also advise Larry on his affair partner. Right. At the same time. Yeah, it was also. What about going, Michael? Yeah, wing manning him.

And so, I mean, and then I think also pointing out just another Iran-Contra connection is that Mina, Arkansas had an airport that was used for, as part of the CIA's trafficking of cocaine to raise money for the Contras. And that was going on while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. So, I mean, you just get a picture here of somebody that, that people were very comfortable with Epstein. They felt protected there. They felt like there wasn't really any.

risk for them. You know, we haven't talked about it, but, you know, one of the justified cancellations appears to be the trouble that Lord Mandelson and Britain got into for sharing what appear to be secret financial information. So you see, I think the picture I get from it. Lord, Lord Mandelson was the U.K. ambassador to the United States. Yes. And what exactly was he doing, Michael? Well, at one point, he shared information with Epstein in advance of an announcement that was going to be made about the bailout of Greece, I believe that was 2010. And gave that, I mean, if you gave forewarning of the bailout of Greece, the stock market, you know, would go up after they announced that because everyone was concerned about the, this was still during the great financial crisis from, you know,

2007 to, you know, and ongoing. And so the Greece deal is, I think after that, the stock market did boom. And so if you had inside information there, I mean, the picture I have is that Epstein had, was probably not like a formal asset. I don't think he, I mean, I would be, I don't get the sense that he actually worked for the government. He struck me as just somebody that had a lot of, a lot of friends in very high places, had a lot of protectors in a lot of different places.

I mean, Kathy Rumler, I mean, she's just one of the most powerful attorneys in the United States, like already by 2008 to go get that job under Obama in the White House as White House counsel for her to then go work for EBSO, I mean, Epstein just had incredibly powerful, you know, people all over the place. Department of Justice, you know, likely, you know, obviously Israeli government, you know, likely other intelligence agencies. He spent a lot of time with Ahead Barack, though.

A lot of time. Yeah, though, interestingly enough, there's a moment there where he's giving job advice to Ehud Barak. And it just struck, it just seemed much more like the kind of banal corruption that we're all sort of used to in terms of advising Ahood Barack on how to make money after. He didn't come, I mean, Epstein didn't come across as like Ehud Barak's, you know, intelligence contact. He just came across as what he was, which was somebody that was an extremely skillful operator. It was really excellent at hiding money, moving money, at people skills.

And it was basically, I would suspect if I had to guess that he was, you know, used by in, you know, having deals with both the Israeli government and the U.S. government. Yeah. And let me add one thing. decades or so. Like, let me add one thing that my was saying because I think, you know, he's on to something there. But there's also this, like, total absence of any membrane

between some high levels of intelligence companies and the kind of U.S. and Israeli intelligence community. And in that conversation that he's referring to, they kick around the idea of Ahou Barak working with Leon Panetta,

another former, you know, Minister of Defense and CIA director, and setting up this shop that would be the two of them as the heads, and the lieutenants of each would be their longtime protegees. It would be Yoni Koran, so it is Israeli intelligence asset and a deputy to Barack, who also stayed in that same apartment.

And it would be Jeremy Bash on the side of Panetta, Jeremy Bash, the ex-husband of Danabash, actually, but a former chief of staff over at the CIA. So, like, one of the kind of like most plugged in people in the intelligence community and as and the like the saying is there's no such thing as a former intelligence official like you're

you're always part you know you're always somewhat in this in this environment you can maintain your security clearances for instance and so not anymore thanks to tell you pulled them all so so yes but so he says

if that's your if that's your best contact American Intel like that's like and you like him the most and you feel comfortable him that could be an interesting company for you guys to set up. And as a company, it would then be exploiting its relationships inside all of the different American intelligence companies, all of the different Israeli intelligence organizations, and then doing kind of freelance corporate slash state craft around the world. So it's this, it's this weird world where it doesn't easily fit into, oh, this is, you know, this is 007 and this is his agent number. And, you know, he gets

paid every two weeks and works for this particular agency. Of course. There's a way of being an asset without being officially declared anything. Especially if you're a money, man. I want to talk about Howard Lutnik. Howard Lutnik. The release of the Epstein files is not going well for our Commerce Secretary at all. Okay, at all.

Let's just start with what he told Miranda Devine on her podcast a couple of months ago. prior to the release of these documents, but when it was pretty clear, Moron Epstein was going to come out. Here is what he told Miranda, because he was living, just when you hear this Sot, he was living right next to Jeffrey Epstein.

They shared a wall, and he's talking about how he got an invitation from Epstein's maid to come over and have coffee with Epstein. So Lutnik and his wife went over to have coffee with Epstein, who then is giving them a tour of his mansion, which shares a wall with Lutnik, and they walk into the dining room here.

And he opens the doors. And there's a massage table in the middle of the room. And candles all around and stuff. So I ask very insightful, cutting questions. I say to him, massage table in the middle of your house. How often you have a massage? And he says, every day. And then he gets like weirdly close to me.

And he says, and the right kind of massage. Now my wife is standing here. So she looks at me and I look at her and we say, I'm sorry, we have to go. And we left. And in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be on. the room with that disgusting person ever again. So I was never in the room with him socially for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn't going because he's gross.

Except none of that was true. None of the things about never seeing him again or walking. I don't know what he may or may have or not have said when he walked out of Epstein's house, but he definitely saw Jeffrey Epstein again multiple times, engaged in business dealings with him, and even went to his private island, a little St. James, in the Caribbean, because he testified to it under oath a week ago on February 10th at a Senate hearing when he had to answer some tough questions about his relationship. Here's that sound bite, six. I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation.

My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple with they were there as well with their children, and we had lunch on the island. That is true for an hour, and we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife, all together. We were on family vacation. we were not apart. Okay. You brought other people, including for some reason,

your children, to Epstein Island, but you went and apparently had them on your yacht. And in addition to that, CBS News reporting that they were in business together, they each signed

on behalf of their own limited liability companies on December 28th, 2012. That's after he pleaded guilty to the solicitation of sex with a minor, prostitute, again, that's not a thing, to acquire stakes

in a now shuttered advertising technology company called ad, Finn. They also arranged calls. They planned to have drinks in 2011. And then after that, then December of 2012 was when they went to the island and had follow-up text, nice seeing you via the assistance. So for some reason, he thought, I guess this wasn't going to come out. And again, that's just, this is just fucking stupid because it was a self-aggrandizing tale, he told Miranda Devine, who I'm sure is pissed that he lied to her face.

thinking this wasn't going to come out and that he could make himself look super virtuous by smelling the disgusting Jeffrey Epstein in one with Emily while walking into his dining room back in it was like 2005 or 2004, it was someplace early in the aughts. And he knew full well. He had gone to little St. James Island well after that and after Epstein's conviction. Even for a globe-trotting billionaire like Howard Lutnik, going to that island, that particular island is not something that you forget, let alone. all of the other associations, the yacht, the meetings, the business transactions that Lutnik we now know had with Epstein. A lot of that is in, again, this new trance that was available in the

Justice Department's library just in the last month or so. So him going out and going so hard in the paint in that conversation with Miranda Devine, this is going to sound very quaint, but it just reeks of low moral character in a very obvious way, especially to mislead the public, to exploit the public's upset over a very very very. serious matter of corruption, of sexual exploitation, to exploit the public's concern over that in such a dramatic fashion and then to be called within a couple of weeks. I mean, Hillary Clinton is sort of doing the same thing right now. She just gave an interview to BBC about how, oh, I met Galane Maxwell a few times and thousands of people came to the Clinton Global Initiative stuff. Well, even CNN.

Wait, we have a little of that. Oh, it's so bad. Let me play it. Stop 15. Let's watch. Just to be clear, do you regret the links that there have been? You know, We have no links. We have a very clear record that we've been willing to talk about, which my husband has said. He took some rides on the airplane for his charitable work. I don't recall ever meeting him. Did you ever meet you, Lee Maxwell? I did on a few occasions, and thousands of people go to the Clinton Global Initiative. So it to me is not something that is really, at the heart of what this matter is about. They are accused and in both cases were convicted of horrific crimes against girls and women. That should be the focus. And we are more than happy

to say what we know, which is very limited and totally unrelated to their behavior or their crimes. And we want to do it in public. Just for the record, she and her husband had an entire war room set up to destroy the young women who are accusing her husband of disgusting sex acts with underage girls in at least some cases, but mostly overage. But she had no problem trying to destroy any woman who came forward against her husband. So she can spare me on the fake moralism about the protection of women. It's a fucking lie. Everything, like everything coming out of her mouth. Go ahead, Emily. Well, no, no, I was just I said like Lutnik. This is a completely brazenly. CNN, Andrew Kaczynskfile over there, has pointed out in these emails, we

see how closely Doug Banned, if you cover DC politics and you have for a while, you know that name. He was Clinton's number two, just like Boris Nikolich was Bill Gates's number two. He was helping Doug BAND and Galane Maxwell set up the Clinton Global Initiative with funding, and Galane Maxwell herself was pretty involved in the early stage of getting the Clinton Global initiative off the ground. There are emails back and forth that are just so gross between Doug Band and Galane Maxwell where they're like calling each other boo-boo and they're very, very, very close to say the absolute least. And so that is absurd. That's a completely misleading statement. And on top of all

of that, people forget, in that Epstein Netflix documentary that came out a couple of years ago, there is a man, I think it was a maintenance man. His name is Scully. He's in the film saying he saw Bill Clinton. This is a guy, his name's out there. He's out there. He's on camera saying he saw Bill Clinton at the island. So there's some significant evidence that these are big lies from the Clintons too. But I think, honestly, Megan Howard Lutnik survives, I think the Clintons ride off into whatever sunset is left for them. I don't know that there are going to be significant consequences in either case. There aren't. There's not going to be significant consequences for any of these people. I mean, for the most part, what we're seeing is just disgusting, debased behavior, not necessarily

illegal. And that's what's frustrating to so many of us, right? It's like, I don't know whether Bill Clinton violated any laws with Epstein or otherwise. I'm pretty sure his Clinton initiative stinks to high heaven, and that needs a full vetting and investigation, his foundation. Also, I don't know whether he committed additional crimes, and we're never going to have accountability, even if he did. Go ahead, Ryan. No, nanny's plural. I mean, come on. Seriously, I've got four kids. I got four kids. Like, plural? Maybe they're super young. Of course. But come on. I mean, Howard Lutnik is a billionaire, so it's like, I'm sure. they outsourced virtually everything. And then he has the nerve to lie about it. It's just like,

so we're on to you. You knew this was coming out. Why would you be so reckless? And where's your damn apology? You make yourself into a James Clapper. Not wittingly. This is supposed to be a more transparent administration. And what President Trump doesn't need is a liar in the position of Commerce Secretary about something as serious as your connections with Jeffrey Epstein. And it was such a bold face lie, Michael. Like, you, he not only was he in a room with him, he went to the guy's island. He started a business with him, reports CBS. I mean, about as bold as you could get. I, you know, yeah, it's bad to lie. I agree. It's bad to lie. I mean, I don't think he should have to step down for it. He didn't lie under oath. You know, I mean, he would probably himself say it wasn't a lie.

he just forgot about it. I'm not I'm not supporting that at all. I agree as bad behavior, but I don't think he should, I don't think he should have to step down for what we've seen so far. I'm not saying he should step down. He shouldn't step down. But wait a minute, though. He should take responsibility for his lie. Not just to anybody, but to Miranda Devine, who most of us on the right love and respect, he humiliated her, lied right to her face. And he had to have known at some level this was going to come out. And he owes her an apology. and he knows the rest of us in apology for lying to our faces. I will tell you it's fine if he doesn't step down.

I don't believe one word that comes out of his mouth from this point forward. Not one word. Not one word. Go ahead. Yeah, but if we're going to say that Romler should step down because of her lie. Because if she was straightforward about what she was doing, she was literally his attorney. And so you be like, look, it was my job to, you know, give him the best possible counsel. I could.

I gave that to him. I now realize, like, the depth of his department. privity. I regret it, but as an attorney, like, I am, uh, that's my job. He, Lundick wasn't his attorney. Like, he didn't have to go to the island. There's no, there was no professional reason. Maybe he couldn't get a reservation at big St. James or whatever. But that's not an excuse to then, like, lie about it. He was on a yacht. Right. He was good. Yeah, he would have been fine. Yeah, he probably had some shrimp cocktail in the fridge. They, they were going to be, they could get by. Um, so it's the lie. It's the same thing. It's, it's just, and

he's such a good liar. That's what's so I think scary about the Ludnik. He's like he's this incredible storyteller. Patrick Bateman. Moves in between the whisper and the like drama and like and he's got you captivated and you're like and then if if the story would have ended with and I never saw him again except for when we got into business together and went to an island when I went over.

We had some drinks and and like but otherwise never again. Other than that. And that business we started for CBS. Other than that, no. By the way, on the Hillary Clinton thing, CNN's Andrew Kaczynski points out, Maxwell was an honored guest at the prestigious Clinton Global Initiative Conference September 2013. Like she was at Chelsea's wedding. But Hillary tries to make it sound like, oh, you know, maybe occasionally, but let thousands of people go.

Are thousands of people an honored guest and show up at your daughter's wedding? She's the worst liar of all. I don't know if it was a thousand. She's like, I'm like Howard. You could tell. Yeah, exactly. So she's a liar too. Megan, I will just jump in and say,

shout out to Norman Finkelstein. Norman Finkelstein is a very famous critic of Israel. And he's, as far as I can tell, the only person who just bluntly says to Epstein, I think Dershowitz has ced on the email, you know, to basically go to hell because of these various accusations. he's the only person that seems to, you know, represent good moral values, you know, and I think that. I think Tina Brown kind of did that too. Okay.

Yeah. But I mean, can I just, we only have a couple of minutes left. Yeah. Can I ask you, have you seen anything in the files about Trump that's worthy of study or follow-up? I've seen it. Oh, go ahead. No, no, you go ahead. I was just going to say, I've seen a message that shows it looks like Melania Trump.

reaching out to Galane Maxwell in 2002, that may show. I mean, it's not huge, but that's one thing I haven't seen in a lot of places. Potentially Melania and Galane had a little bit of a friendship that we don't know much about right now per that email. But that's just one thing that I've come across. I think Trump largely benefited from the fact that this tranche, all these documents seem to be dated, like, post-2006. And I think his friendship with Epstein was over then. When they were friends, they weren't big on emailing or texting and at least. not as evidenced by anything we've seen. Go ahead, Michael. Oh, no, I was, I was just going to say,

you know, following up on the Finkelstein thing is just we saw, you know, this brought down a major titan of the left in Noam Chomsky. You know, they basically, you know, said that, or his wife said that he was one of their best friends. So I just think, yeah, it's an indictment of this culture of the elites. And I think to bring down such kind of esteemed people, I mean, Chomsky was always considered, even if you didn't like his politics, was always considered sort of above reproach and a highly moral person. And here he is just kind of waving these things away. So I think it's an amazing, just to look back on it. I mean, I just credit to all the conspiracy theorists who demanded that the files be released against so much elite pressure against it.

And I think we've seen this really bipartisan reaction. It's a very, I think it's a very, been a very positive experience for the most part. I like that as an ending. Let's hear it for the conspiracy theorists. And we will put a pin. in the Prince Andrew discussion for another day, because that's going to take a while, and we just were out of time. Guys, thank you. Thank you all so much. We come back in just a bit with the latest on the Nancy Guthrie investigation, and there are updates. You know Pure Talk's favorite holiday? It's President's Day, because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple presidents, just a little Jackson and Lincoln, to be exact. For just 25 bucks a month,

Pure Talk gives you unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data. Now, compare the that to big wireless. They'd rather celebrate the Benjamin's, Mr. Franklin, to be exact, and his day so they can charge your family hundreds every month. That's not right. You deserve better. Pure Talk is an American wireless company who supports our veterans and invests in a U.S. only customer service team. So when you call, you're talking to someone right here at home. Pure Talk uses the same towers as the big carriers, so enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just 25 bucks a month for talk, text, and plenty of data. No contract, no cancellation fee. What are you waiting for? Just dial pound 250 and say keyword Megan Kelly and you will get

50% off your first month. Again, dial pound 250 and then say Megan Kelly to make the switch to pure talk. Welcome back to the Megan Kelly show. We couldn't wrap today without diving into the latest in the Nancy Guthrie case. Sheriff Nanos making the media rounds yesterday, sitting down with multiple outlets, instead of just holding a press conference, which would be very easy if he would just stand up there and take some cues. He revealed that investigators are now exploring genetic genealogy testing on the DNA evidence collected after hitting a dead end in the CODIS database, the FBI's database of convicted felons and also arrestees. There's been no match to those gloves that were found in the field. And it appears he's also saying there's been no match from the DNA that's not Nancy's nor any of her contractors inside of her.

her home that they found. So dead end right now. That doesn't mean that they can't do something with the genetic genealogy, which we'll get into in a minute. Plus, TMZ's Harvey Levin announcing they've received yet another ransom. He just told Sean Handy last night that they would not be announcing any more letters, but he just couldn't help himself. He got something and it was a chance to be on TV. All that and more with our regulars who are back to discuss it all. Jim Fitzgerald, also known as Fitzgerald. He's a former FBI supervisory, agent and a forensic linguist, also co-host of the Cold Red podcast. Maureen O'Connell, a 25-year-old, 25, now she looks 25, but she's a 25-year veteran of the FBI and a co-host of the best-case,

worst-case podcast. And also security expert William Geddes. Guys, thank you all so much for being here. So a dead end, absolutely, on the DNA, which is not a shock, right? I don't think it's a shock. and now they're going to try to do genetic genealogy on them. But I mean, to me, you guys, this is like, now we're going to do genetic genealogy on the two gloves that were found two miles from the crime scene. Like, it was one thing to see, it's fine. I guess it doesn't hurt.

But is this even a real lead? These two gloves found two miles from Nancy Guthrie's home when they found 16 gloves or 15 gloves. And like they didn't come back with a hit that matched anybody in CODIS, nor did they match the DNA that was found at the home. So are we spinning wheels here or what, Maureen? No, we've got to look at those black gloves because they matched the gloves that the offender was wearing when he was up at the door. And also, when you create distance between yourself and the crime scene, you know, you feel a little bit safer.

Maybe he got out just to, as I said earlier, as crass as it sounds, relieve himself and they fell out of his pocket. Or he reached in to pull his phone out or something to turn his phone back on while he was standing there. the gloves fell out. I know it sounds crazy to a lot of people, but if you've worked a lot with those gloves in your pockets, you know, they sometimes do fall out. So I don't think that that's a dead end at all. I'm very disappointed, though, to your point about the lack of CODIS hits or even, because in CODIS, you can also get close relatives. We don't even have close relatives for either of these DNA donors. So that's, that's concerning. But the whole job of law enforcement is, you know, you're just muddling, not muddling through, but you're working, working, working until something pans out,

which oftentimes can take a long time. And it's, you know, it's hard being patient, but patience is a virtue. Here's one thing that does seem like a good lead, at least for now. On Tuesday, law enforcement was in Nancy's neighborhood, and two officials came out to the side of one of her neighbor's homes with a ladder and appeared to be checking the surveillance camera on the neighbor's house and looking at a phone. CNN reported this and said they'd reached out for clarification on what they were doing. But at Nancy's house, you saw Pima County Sheriff's Department of vehicles in the driveway, and then one person coming out of the house with a bag wearing blue gloves, so they're still, I guess, finding evidence in Nancy's.

And there they are on the side of the neighbor's home looking at security cameras at the neighbors. And then the founder of the ring doorbell cam, Jamie Siminoff, was actually on CNN and spoke to what could possibly be happening there. Here is what Jamie Siminoff told CNN's Kate Bold on. When you see, and we'll show the video again, investigators up on a ladder, and they say they're conducting follow-up, follow-up investigations, or referencing a phone, looking at a camera.

What are they likely trying to confirm? Is there a range of possibility? I mean, it's hard to speculate. The footage, it does appear to be a ring floodlight camera. Again, it's pretty small in the picture, but it does appear to be one of our floodlight cameras. The footage would be in the cloud if it was there. So maybe they're looking at the angle of it.

Okay. Now, Fitz, that to me seems somewhat promising if you've got the neighbor's floodlight camera on Nancy's home and something could be, could have been recorded. Promising 16 days ago, though. Why are they just looking at that now? That's 101. I mean, we talked on your show and others, Megan, every, you know, red light camera on the street and of course getting closer. Of course, Nancy's house itself, which they finally got the, you know, the video off of that. I don't understand. and why they even have to go up on a ladder to do anything. I mean, it's in the cloud, as the guest on CNN said. So, yes, this, of course, should be looked at. It should have been looked at. And I'm not here to criticize people.

This is one of the basic things in, you know, Prime Scene 101, nowadays anyway, get all the nearby cameras you can. If you know, search warrant or a subpoena, whatever it takes, I'm surprised it took this long. And unless they're going back for something else that was missed the first time around with that camera. So good news they're doing it. that maybe could have done 16 or 17 days ago.

Well, same with that, the search on the helicopter for the connection with her pacemaker. It's like, glad to see you doing it now. I would have loved to have seen it day one, two, three, four, and thereafter. Will your thoughts on the gloves not matching? And we believe the sheriff is a little ambiguous, but we believe he's also said that there's no match to codas from the DNA they found in the house. And also the fact that now they're getting around to the neighbor's ring cam on the floodlight. Well, I think they've got to sort of process any evidence that they potentially can gather and either see it as valid and viable. And it actually leads them to perhaps another piece of evidence that they can potentially springboard from to trying to identify and obtain the identity of who that individual was that was at Nancy's house.

But ultimately, it is pepper seeds. It's all this intelligence, all these little bits of evidence. they will all gather together hopefully in a big picture that can then form a better understanding of exactly what went on and who was possibly involved. I agree with Fitz entirely on the camera on the neighbour's house and why they're doing it right now really does surprise me because I would have hoped one of the first things

that would have been done by even a junior officer would be to go around, map up every single house that had a camera to inquire with the homeowner whether it was still working. And there's a chance they may have been up on the ladder because maybe the user or the homeowner that the camera was attached to their residents may not have registered their details, maybe didn't have a live connection or it lost it at some point and logged out.

So again, it's seeing whether it actually has any power still to it. And there's every good chance. Maybe it didn't have any power. And if it didn't, then obviously that's not going to bear any fruit. But all the cameras, an entire route, and as fit said, even any red light cameras. It should try and chain, a daisy chain almost, the access, by this individual and the egress, in which direction do they leave? What was the vehicle? Can they identify a license plate? All that sort of intrinsic intelligence.

So now they're going to go try genetic genealogy for the DNA that they've recovered on the gloves. And again, the reason I say it's ambiguous whether they've gotten a match in CODIS or not on the DNA inside the house is because the sheriff is, you know, it's not that precise with his language. And Jonathan Hunt of Fox News asked him, is there a CODIS match from the DNA in the house? And he said, no. Which, okay, that's why in our AM update this morning, we reported that the sheriff says, no, no match from the DNA in the house. And I think the FBI actually also said that.

But then later that day, the Pima County Sheriff's Department put out, or today, was today. put out something suggesting they're still testing the DNA in the house. So just put an asterisk after it. We don't, as has become typical, we don't totally understand what the sheriff is meaning to say. But genetic genealogy is hot. It is the future of law enforcement. It is very, very hot. It's amazing how they, like, Cece Moore, who's been on the show a couple times,

she's the godmother of it. And she was saying this is why you're not going to have serial killers anymore in the United States because it's just too, like, touch DNA doesn't have to be yours that they find in their database. It can be your sixth cousin and Cece Moore when she's sicked on the case of, okay, we can tell that this touch DNA we found on this crime scene belongs to someone who's a dissonant relation to, you know, our whatever. we can find that it's this, it's related to this person who we got a hit off of. But we know it wasn't this person who's in our COTA's database because this person is 100 years old and in hospice. So you start from that 100 year old person in hospice and you start drawing circles around the person and getting to all their relatives until you can get closer and closer and closer in this case to Tucson,

Arizona and somebody who might be living there. And then this is how she does it. She figures out, who did that person marry? Who were their children? Who were their grandchildren? Who did they marry? Where are they from? She pulls up birth announcements.

She pulls up death announcements. She actually came on and explained it with respect to the Kohlberger case on, because, you know, in that case, they grabbed his trash and did, did testing. And that's how they often do it. They grab your trash, which is why Brian Kohlberger was putting his trash into his neighbor's bin. In the moment, he was arrested. He was doing that, by the way. Anyway, here she is describing the process, because this is what's now going to be done to

the DNA on those gloves and probably also that found in Nancy's home. This is pretty common when investigative genetic genealogy has pointed law enforcement toward a certain individual or family. And they'll do what's called a trash pole. If they can't just follow that person and pick something up that they dropped, then they'll typically resort to waiting for that person to put their trash out on the curb. And most states allow this. It's considered abandoned at that point. And then they go through the trash and try to find an item that might have DNA on it. But when it's a home like this, a household where there's multiple. people, they don't know exactly whose DNA they're going to get. So in this case, they found a male sample of DNA and tested it, and it wasn't the suspects. However, they were able to perform what is basically a standard paternity test comparison to the profile from the button on the

sheath and determined that that individual's DNA from the trash was the father of the individual who left his DNA behind at the crime scene. So are we feeling excited? Let me ask you the fits about the genetic genealogy possibilities here. This is very close to home for me, Megan, because the first case I remember as a little boy growing up in Philadelphia was the boy in the box case. In late 50s, a little boy found in a box and sort of the outskirts of Philly, still in the city limits. No one knew who he was. Everyone wanted to know this guy, this little boy's identity.

The Voxicide, I've been wearing this pin. I think it's on this side, every day, everywhere I go, they're a cold case society in Philly. Finally, after all these leads all around the world, who is this little boy? We got to give him a name about two, three years ago, through genetic DNA. And I think Cici may have had some work in it. I'm not sure. That little boy was finally identified. From West Philadelphia, they can put a name on his tombstone now.

He wasn't Potter's Field. If he docked aside, he moved him. I'm also, so that was a great accomplishment there with genetic. We sought to figure out who killed him, but now we at least know his name and his parents are unfortunately deceased. I worked a case in Lancaster, PA as a profiler in the early 2000s. There was a 25-year anniversary of a woman who was raped and murdered in her home, and I just did a TV show called Philly Homicide and with my friend Chris McMullen,

who's the host, and that case came back. They finally solved that one with genetic DNA. And I don't want to give too much away, but they actually went to Italy and found the town where this DNA was originally resulted from, and they could put it all together in Lancaster and come up with their suspect. It is amazing what can be done now with this type of acknowledgement with this DNA and not to serial killers, but serial rapists, anybody leaving any fluid behind at a scene. They're going to get identified. Let's just hope we have something here at Mrs. Guthrie's house. Yeah, the problem for us here is we don't know if the abductors' DNA is on those gloves or if the DNA they have found inside the house that doesn't match Nancy or one of her service

providers is in fact the perpetrators. You know, we could just be testing. I don't know, maybe she forgot that she had a dog walker come by, you know, two months ago or maybe it's DNA from when she had Savannah visit last and one of Savannah's friends came over. Like we just don't even know that we're, it's not like we found, it's not like we found, it's not like we saw the guy open up the doorknob with a naked hand. And like, we know the DNA we're testing on the doorknob belongs to the perpetrator. So this is, we have to do it. I agree with you, Maureen, but like, man, we're spending a lot of time running down DNA that may have absolutely nothing to do with the crime scene. Here's one more, um, SOT of C.C. Moore talking about how,

because they go to the public databases that have people's DNA in them. And it's not, they're not supposed to go to 23 and Me or Ancestry.com or Heritage.com, which are private. That's where the four of us us would go if we wanted to see, like, how Scottish am I, you know, or what diseases might be latent inside of me? Those are not supposed to be accessible by the feds, but here's C.C. explaining. You're using a website, not 23MMe, not Ancestrian.com, called GED match. And my understanding is the way you populated this GED match, because you point out, you, you know, you know, you're, you need as many samples on there as possible is by encouraging people who are into this, who would like to connect with other relatives, to take their 23 and Me, their Ancestry.com

results and upload them to GED match and to widen the chances that they'll connect with somebody. Right. So Jedmatch was started by two friends of mine, Curtis Rogers and John Olson, back in 2010-11. And of course, when it started, there was no one in there. So we had to convince people to download their raw data from one of the other sites, which at the time was just 23 and Me and Family Tree DNA, and upload to Jedmatch. And so it was just a small site, kind of a playground for more advanced genetic genealogists. It was where we could try out new tools. We could do cross-company comparisons. So if you tested at 23 and me and I tested at Family Tree DNA or later Ancestry, we could both upload there for free and then compare our

looking for those long identical shared segments. Okay, but here's the thing, Will. In Colberger, they tested the DNA, they found out that knife sheath against GED match or Jed match, and they did not get a match because it's a much smaller database than if you were to include 23 million ancestry and heritage and all that. And they compared the DNA anyway. to those private company's DNA. It became a big issue in Colberger.

Brian's defense attorney wound up trying to exclude the evidence saying they violated the DOJ's policy not to take advantage of the private databases because of the general skepticism and fear people have of the government having access to their DNA profiles. And the judge denied the motion saying that's, you know, They may have violated a DOJ policy, but that doesn't make this inadmissible. And of course, they wound up having Brian Kohlberger's cheeks swab by the time they went to trial and then settled it. But there was a zero doubt that they had found the right guy. In any event, couldn't they potentially do the same thing here?

Get a warrant or beg the companies. That's what somebody was saying. I would beg, I would beg Savannah, Guthrie to go. to all the companies and say, please give us permission, because you can give us permission. It's not a violation of law to let us have access to this. So we can see if there's a match to find this kidnapper. Yeah, I'd agree, Megan. I think that there are two fundamental flaws potentially with this DNA search on this,

from these elements that they've captured. The first of which is, you know, will it make a match? And one of the problems is that with many of these private DNA companies, most of the people who've contributed or donated their DNA have been doing it willingly and they've paid for the process to try and find out the answers to those questions you mentioned earlier about themselves personally, you know, their ancestry and whatnot. But the problem is, is do we believe that the individual that we've seen on the ring doorbell is that someone who would go voluntarily himself? by his own omission and submit a sample, basically, to try and find out this information. I think that's a bit of a lottery. And I think the second issue, as you rightly say, is these are private companies. This could open up a nest of Viper, so to speak,

but many of the individuals who have contributed their own personal data. This is private personal data, which they have been assured by those companies would not be revealed unnecessarily. So there may be some serious legal implications. The other two on the panel may come back with a suitable explanation as to why it may not. But my concern would be, I think there will be a lot of people who may be on the fringes of criminality, who may have submitted that DNA, which is going to give a lot of very revealing personal information about themselves, concerned that the DOJ is accessing it and could, whilst they're there,

harvest all sorts of other data. That's the risk. It was C.C. Moore who said, if I were Savannah, I'd be going to Ancestry.com. And 23 and me, I think, had to file for bankruptcy, but they're still around, like, some remnant of it. In any event, it was C.C. Moore saying, if I were Savannah, I'd go to them and I'd beg them to please let the FBI have access to their databases, which is interesting that it's voluntary. You know, they could do it. It's like the companies don't really have an incentive to do it because, I mean, already they're struggling. The reason 23 and me was filing for bankruptcy. I just, I don't want to. like completely get it wrong, but I'm pretty sure they had to file for bankruptcy,

is because it's a one and done kind of service. You pay your $100, you get your DNA analyzed, and you never go back again. You know, it's like, it's not like the iPhone where they can continue giving you shitty iOS updates on your phone, ruining your service, and then you have no choice but to buy a new one. Now that's a business model. That can stand the test of time. But this, with these private DNA companies, isn't. And so they're going to undermine themselves even more if now the message is,

You should upload and we'll tell you whether you have the gene for Alzheimer's, and also we'll tell the government. As soon as they come knocking, we're going to tell them whatever genes you have and also whether your brother's a criminal. Yeah, I mean, there's another quick question I'd like to pop in, which is what is their data retention policy? I mean, how long do they keep that DNA? Once you've spent your 100 bucks, you've got your result. How long do they keep that data there? There must be some public published, published, policies for these companies, which say maybe they only hold it for six months or maybe a year. And then to give capacity to their server or their files, they may get rid of it. They may erase it.

My team is telling me, I'm correct, they filed for bankruptcy in March of 2025. You were going to say something, Fitz. Yeah, you brought up the iPhone. I remember, I think it was 2014, the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. It was a Muslim couple, and they shoot out with police. They wind up dead. There's a cell phone next to them, one or two cell phones. Apple phones. And you probably everyone remembers this. And they tried to get the police, FBI,

hey, give us the code to the phone. We can see who an al-Qaeda they're talking to or ISIS, whatever. And Apple said, nope, not going to do it. Not going to do it. It's kind of the same principle here. And apparently Comey was director. He didn't do too many things right in my estimation. But he somehow got an Israeli company that could break the software or had software that could figure out the code and that they had their information there. So to me, that's akin to what we're talking about here with the rights of people who submit their information. information. There are some DOJs that I wouldn't have a problem with my information, like maybe right now. There are others I wouldn't necessarily trust. That's kind of the big brother aspect of it all. So I kind of get where they're coming from. But you think there could be exceptions

with a special kind of a warrant, special kind of a court order. And every once in a while, it could be done for the case like this. I mean, with the permission of the company, you could do it. But, you know, the ideal way of doing it, Maureen, is to keep it quiet. You know, I think If I'm in the CEO of one of those companies, yeah, I would quietly say, okay, we'll do it. But for the love of God, don't publicize that we worked with you. But there's so much scrutiny on this case, I think they all know, we're going to know, if they give it over for analysis by the FBI. I think they'd also have a job, Megan, to reverse engineer for it to be admissible in court.

So if it was a more covert operation to do that DNA match through those organizations, and those organizations were Well, it's risky. Yeah. I mean, in Colberger, she did not exclude it. Or I can't remember it was a he at that point. The judge did not exclude it. But you don't want to run the risk if you don't have to.

But, I mean, there's so much pressure on the cops in this case, Maureen, like they, I don't know. You tell me whether they'll be tempted to try to go to Savannah, to ask her to appeal to the private DNA companies or whether the FBI might just do it. In Colberger, they just did it. I think they just have the ability somehow to. access it. Well, yeah, because that's how I'm remembering. If you can, if, you know, you can come up with a with a DNA STR, which is like a license plate. It's like 40 numbers that you can submit into

CODIS and everything like that. But if you're trying to do the SNP, the SNP, which they need to do a forensic genealogy upload, that's like a novel. So that's a whole different ball of whack. So we are not even to the point right now that we've been made aware yet that the DNA that they have enough DNA or the right kind to create a snip. And although Cece Moore is the godmother of forensic genetic genealogy, my good friend from FBILA, Steve Kramer, and now Steve Bush also, they're the godfathers of it, and they're friends with Cece. They just had lunch with her the other day,

but they were explaining the whole difference to me and how we're not even at the place yet where we know that we have a snip, unless they have it and they haven't told us. Right. You do need a hit to somebody. Like, there's got, one of your distant relatives must have submitted their DNA to one of these organizations for you to be potentially caught if you're the perp. But like, if you're one of those people who's lucky enough that not a single person in your

circle around you or your distant family ever gave the DNA, then you won't be caught this way. but it's getting rarer and rarer as people continue to use these services. I want to keep going because there's a lot, there's not a lot more to get to. The sheriff, he gave a bunch of interviews yesterday. Gosh, I don't even know where to begin. He said that they are continuing to check the Nancy's ring cams for images, including of this perp, including possibly of Nancy's egress from the house. And obviously, they're checking now the neighbor's ring or nest cam, the ring cam, I think we just, that's who we played the

sound bite from. And that same ring founder on CNN explained a little bit more about what they're doing to try to search for these, like right now, possibly lost, but not deleted images that may still be stored on like their central cloud or their central computer system. Let's listen to him. They call it scratching. It's like the way it was described to me is you've got eight layers of paint and you want to peel down to the sixth layer. But you get to that fifth layer and you might tear the sixth layer. So there it's a delicate operation for them. This idea of scratching and what he's talking about, what would you think, what is he describing here? And again, not to describe how they would do it, but I would say just overall databases and how storage is.

There's sometimes remnant data that's stored if you don't run. We run scripts. As soon as you delete a video at ring, we run a script that basically takes it off of the server. If you're doing Live View and you don't have a subscription, we actually don't record it. So for us, we don't have these remnant data. But remnant data in databases can exist if you don't run sort of a deletion script. So it's almost like, to me, it's more like putting trash in your can in the kitchen, and you just haven't taken it out to the street yet.

So it's still in there until you basically take it out. So it is, I think what they're describing is there's some data that somewhere it's hard. It could be in multiple places. It could be sort of broken and they're trying to put it back together is what it sounds like they're doing. Okay, so that's so interesting. What he's telling us there, Fitz, is it's a good thing Nancy had a nest and not a ring. Because if you're not going to get the subscription service and you have ring, there's no chance of recovering an image that the camera saw but didn't record. But if you have Nest, there is a chance that it is sitting there until the trash has actually been taken out.

And we saw, the three of us were together when the images came in of the abductor. And we realized that that trash had not been taken out. And there is still a chance that there's more trash sitting there that hasn't actually gone out to the dumpster for the garbage guy to pick up yet. Yeah, there's no doubt. There are some tech people from the FBI Academy Laboratory. the FBI laboratory at Quantico working probably in the offices with the Ness company, with their text, and who knows, some other private sector people they're bringing in to do everything they can to get into that type of information of these multiple levels of scratches.

There's no doubt highly proprietary information here and technology that even the ring guy we heard didn't want to necessarily reference too much. I know they're probably similar setups, but they may have their own specific designs. And yeah, he made it. very clear. With Ring, you don't have a subscription, you're one and done, or you're none and done, I should say. But with Nest, of course, you have that chance of getting that new information out. So they are working diligently on this and going back, I hope, not just for that night, but, you know, as far back weeks or months as they can, with every camera they come upon, quite frankly, and I hope they once have subscriptions, that would make it easy. But they've got

to really mine these camera systems in every way they can with the most modern technology, even in a way they have to sort of invent it like this Israeli company did with their software to get into the password of an iPhone. So they're working on it. It's a question of when they're going to find it and, of course, what they find. Well, let's hope this ring camera on the floodlight of the neighbor, okay, which is not nest, it's ring. So it won't have stored images unless the neighbor has a subscription service. Let's hope that that neighbor has a subscription service. Presumably they do. Or ring would have said, we can't be of help to you. I mean, it's two weeks later, so there's not going to be anything there. So presumably they do have a subscription service. Otherwise, why would they be

spinning their wheels? The sheriff was asked by Brian Enton about additional cameras at Nancy's. Now, keep in mind, Ashley Banfield reported that there was a nest cam in the front that we already know, and that there was one in the back, too, and that both of the nest cams at Nancy's were taken. And And the sheriff has never confirmed anything about the back door. He has never, he has said, we don't have the nest cameras. So like, whatever number there were, they were taken. And he won't confirm forced entry. He won't say whether the perp got in through the front door or the back door.

But Brian did ask him about additional cameras in SOP 56. Take a listen. I know that you and the FBI were able to get those surveillance photos off the camera in the front of the house. No. Any progress on the other cameras, can you do the same thing? Boy, I'm hopeful. So, there's other cameras. Your question, will we get more?

We've asked that Google, hey, guys, can you do this? And they said the very same thing. Sheriff, we don't think we can get anything, but we'll try. And that's all we're hopeful. And so as of now, it's still just the video from the front. Yes. Okay, so the sheriff hard to hear there, but was saying there are more cameras. He has said that before. He didn't specifically say it's another nest camera, but didn't sound too hopeful in that particular sound bite. And it's been now more than a week since they found the video of the abductor on the front porch, Maureen. So are we getting pessimistic about the odds of recovering another needle in the hazy? stack. I'm getting pessimistic about that and it's it hurts my soul. But I do know that if you recall

when the when the sheriff gave one presser, he said that with their strong partnership, or no, it was Cash Patel who said with our strong partnerships with the private sector, we were able to go in and help Google with their things. So I have faith that the FBI people, if they're embedded in there, and they're allowing them to work there, that they will have the best luck. Because the FBI does unbelievable work. I've seen it. One of the guys on my team used to do that work for the Bureau. It does take a lot of time.

It does take a lot of patience. And it takes an unbelievable amount of experience and intelligence when it comes to these type of systems. Old ones cobbled together with new ones. Is there a SIM card attached? Does it have, is it in the cloud? is it on a recorder at the home, you know, all these things together. And they're going to be digging very carefully down every single alley.

So my hope is low. My expectation is low. But I'm hoping that they're just going to come up with something great for us. I mean, it would be the best place to get more evidence if they could possibly get anything out of there. The sheriff also spoke with Fox News and Jonathan Huff. Hunt and had this to say about exploring any connection in this crime to Mexico, Tucson, of course, where she lives, being an hour away from the southern border. Here's what he said in SOT 53. Any suggestion at all that Nancy Guthrie might have been taken across the border into Mexico? Are you looking at all?

You know, I'm sure the FBI's looked into that as well, but no, I mean, we check all the leads we have. We're like everybody else. We know where Mexico is in relationship to this. And certainly it's a possibility, but no, we have nothing to indicate that. And yet, this just in from Fox News is Michael Ruiz. A federal law enforcement source confirms the FBI has contacted Mexican authorities in connection with the Nancy Guthrie case. So the sheriff says they don't have any firm evidence that she's been taken across the border

and says there's no indication she was taken there, but we are contacting the Mexican authorities. Is this like, the sheriff seems, every time he's talked about Mexico, he's like, no. And then we find out the FBI is talking. How can he say no? We don't know who did it. I'd like, explain that to me, Will. Like, why is he like, no, it's not Mexico?

How do we how the hell do we know? I don't know, Megan, and I have to say every single time I see an interview or any words coming out of his mouth, I'm almost aghasted. at his somewhat ambiguous and foggy answers to everything or definitive answers when really, to be honest, he shouldn't be saying anything. I mean, again, this is what I was saying we were discussing last week,

which is about it's so important that those updates that you are providing have to be as accurate as possible. They cannot be in conflict with what the FBI may be saying or doing, and ultimately, you're going to lose more and more credibility. And the family, you know, Savannah and the other family, members, we'll be losing their faith and hope in the capability of actually retrieving their

mother in whatever capacity that might be. I think, again, the problem with the sheriff, I mean, even going to the camera's point, he even said other cameras, so there was inevitably more than one backdoor camera. That was the front camera. Also in terms of Google, and I've worked with Google, and I've looked at also data retrieval on a number of projects and operations investigations. And if Google were able to retrieve, obviously, the footage from the front camera, from the Ness camera, obviously on the front door, then they should be able to retrieve the footage from the ones at the back. And there should be a very quick interrogation of Nancy's financials, looking at her credit card statements, looking at her bank account, to see if she's got a Ness

subscription. You should be able to find that out literally within 24 hours. That's a good point. The sheriff I'm sorry, he's lost credibility with me. I no longer believe the sheriff. This is just one example, but the whole business, this is yet another example of like, the sheriff seems to be making it up. Like, no, Mexico, okay, I don't believe you. I don't know whether it's true, it's not true, but I know that you don't know enough to say that yet. And then the thing about whether the family members have all been cleared. This is the chronology. It's changed again. Here we are.

On Wednesday, it's been changing every day this week. Okay, let me tell you, on Sunday to the Daily Mail, the sheriff, nobody has been cleared as suspects. On Monday in a press release, the family has been cleared as possible suspects. NBC News reports that same day, absolutely no evidence was examined in order to get to the new conclusion. So we knew the sheriff had pulled it out of his hat, right? Like when he said no one's been cleared and then the family's been cleared, we all said,

oh, they must have gotten a DNA. Something came back. Like something got him there. No, NBC reported absolutely nothing changed. It's just the sheriff just deciding to tell us they've been ruled out. And then he added, and they've been ruled out from the first early days of the case. Well, then why did you tell the Daily Mail on Sunday that no one's been ruled out? Why did you say that?

Why did you say that every day for the preceding 12 days that no one had been ruled out? So it seemed very clear that he was trying to do the family a solid on Monday by just saying they're all ruled out. Then the FBI wouldn't go that far. Just kind of had a no comment in response to his, the family's ruled out. Then Wednesday yesterday, sorry, no, Tuesday, which was yesterday, he comes out after the showtime and said the Guthrie family has not been identified as suspects. They've not been identified as a suspect. Well, that is not the same thing as being ruled out, being cleared. That's not the same thing at all.

That's a massive walkback, which he did. And then he sits down with Fox News' Jonathan Hunt and he asks the sheriff, this is within an hour of him doing the walkback of saying, well, they haven't been cleared. And this is what he says, SOT 51. You are 100% certain that there is no connection between the kidnapping and the siblings or the sibling's spouses, the Guthrie siblings. I am completely, I think we put out a statement yesterday. I put it out. 100% certain that this family has been completely victimized. And the re-victimization should not occur, ever.

No. Jim, you are a linguist. No, none of it works. None of it does work. And these exonerations always bother me. In the John Bonnet-Ramese case, the family was completely exonerated by the Boulder de Ga. Not saying anyone in the family killed the girl, but just a complete exoneration to me makes no sense. I'm on a podcast right now, my own podcast called Red. We're talking to the father of a woman killed in British Columbia in 2008. And the family, the police there, Sanjp.D., have completely exonerated her boyfriend and her boyfriend's mother. And now we have, of course, the sheriff in this case, exonerating the family.

Unless you're putting handcuffs on someone else with DNA evidence, there is absolutely no purpose. And where's the DA in this? Can you imagine being the district attorney? somehow the family, you know, evidence points to a family member, how much the arguments will be before the jury that will, the sheriff himself said they're not involved. What did this change? You know, what political aspect came in and then you all of a sudden changed ideas here and they were exonerated than not. And it's all they need in front of a jury, you know, just to just to make one person say, oh, they're not guilty. So there's no purpose for these these exonerations. You can say we're not focusing on the family right now and leave it at that and move on. but it doesn't mean you've closed the door. And unless there's some, unless they're playing, you know, 9D chess. And quite frankly, I don't,

I don't think the sheriff is on that level of a chessboard. No way. Anyway. Maureen, the number, like, Sunday, no one's cleared. Monday, the family's cleared. Tuesday, the family's, uh, not identified as suspects right now. He said, right now. Then within an hour of that statement,

the interview to Jonathan Hunt. So you're saying they're 100% cleared. They've 100% been victimized. So like, what is he doing? He's really making it difficult for whoever the prosecution team is. And if I were on trial prep with this, I know the first meeting with the prosecutor, we would just sit there and drop our face into our hands

saying, how are we going to circumnavigate this nightmare? because if he thinks he's not going to be put on the stand and just grilled, left, right, and center for all these contradicting statements, you know, it's just a disservice, in my opinion, all of his jawjacking is a complete disturbance divergence from what should be important, which is the investigation and the noble professionals that are carrying out all these, you know, investigative leads and following these lines of inquiry, because this is just not helpful, and that's the nicest way I can say it. Yeah, just be quiet about it. You know, it's, well, it's like, put aside Ashley Banfield's reporting early on that her senior law enforcement source said that the brother-in-law may be the prime suspect at this time. Put that aside.

We all have been watching them tow the Guthrie car, the Annie Guthrie car, who's married to Tamas. We watched them go into Annie and Tomas's house in the dark hours of the evening and keep the light off and take a bunch of photos. We watched them come out of the house with what look like evidence bags. Like, we've watched them, we asked specifically about Tomas and refuse to rule him out or rule out any family members. And then suddenly one day, like magic, the sheriff says cleared, the FBI doesn't back it up. And then the next day comes out and won't say cleared again, but just says, oh, not identified as suspects. And we're all supposed to be shamed out of discussing Tomas or Annie or anybody,

like we're supposed to take his cue that it's not nice. He keeps saying it's mean. I don't know what, like, I'm gleaning that the sheriff may genuinely not think that this guy did it, but I don't think we can say the FBI has ruled him out. And this seems like another example of piss poor coordination on his part. I think it shows a lot more than that. I couldn't agree more with what Maureen and Fitz have both said.

What we're seeing here is his ego driving his, interactions and updates. And that's fundamentally all it is. And he's dealing with it, as you rightly say, in a personal, not a professional fashion. Until such time, as Nancy has been retrieved, living or not, nobody can be discounted as a potential suspect. They can be put on hold or put on ice temporarily whilst other inquiries are searched through. But, you know, it is his ego and his really obscure and officious and obfuscating answers, which really are baffling and embarrassing more than anything else. I think there are probably people in his own department who are just biting the table, hoping for him to shut up and fingers crossed.

You know, someone should be stepping into his place. Being a spokesperson for the sheriff's department, the sheriff himself, he's an embarrassment to his team. It's gotten out of hand. It's just, I mean, nobody believes him now. it's adding sort of a joke element to this case, which is the last thing we need. There's a very funny guy online. I've been following him. He's actually coming on the show tomorrow.

We're going to talk about this. But he's taken to calling Nancy Benet Ranzi because it's just there's so many aspects of the case where it's like, okay. I mean, is she in the basement? Did you check under the bed? Did you check the closets? Because the sheriff does not instill confidence at this point. And it's not, we're not used to it.

Like when the FBI handles a case, you guys know, they say very little, but they are the ultimate pros. They come out, they answer only what's asked and say nothing in excess of what they've decided before they've gotten in front of the reporters. They're going to say it's utter message discipline, Maureen. And that is not what we're seeing from this sheriff because he seems, frankly, too emotional. Right. And you said it great. we keep our mouth shut and part of the reason we do is because we we understand through experience how many times we've had to pivot on and off of things you know that there are so many different

machines moving at crazy um paces right now that there's it would be just it's just darrell it's it's just i don't know the word i'm looking for but reckless reckless it's reckless to to say that everyone's cleared when you have so many things going on. Now, if there's nothing going on in the investigation, then it makes sense. There's nothing going on. We're not doing anything. But I mean, even the simple thing where we don't even know how anyone got into the house, we're saying that, oh, well, on the timeline, if you look, it's 948 that they open the garage and it closed two minutes later. Well, there's a number of different ways to open the garage, depending on your device and how it's configured. You can open it with a little clicker like this, which is probably what

Nancy would have had in her purse, or you could open it through the keypad that we saw the ERT team take from the side of the garage. I believe that's what they were doing. I think, would you guys agree that we saw them remove that keypad? But the only thing, depending on how it's configured, the only thing that's really going to keep a log of that entry is going to be an app. you're doing it, you know, in the old analog way, if it's configured in a way that it can do all these different entry types, you can have people coming in and out of that garage without any, any log being produced on your phone. So I... Well, and you're making the point because Tamas was the one who dropped Nancy off, allegedly at 948 that night after a night with Tamas and Nancy, I'm sorry,

Annie, playing games at their house. And they said her garage, Nancy's garage door open at 948, closed at 950, but do we really know that Nancy was returned at that hour? Do we know that she walked into the house? The pacemaker and the iPhone may give us some clue. Presumably, they've done phone analysis on Nancy's phone that suggests she was back at home. But we don't know that because they do, Jim, keep going back to Annie's house and taking pictures and so on. And so it is possible that law enforcement has seen something suggesting we don't really know if Nancy Guthrie was in her own home from 948 forward that evening? Bottom line, we do not know that. You are accurate from the first day we've been together, Megan, we've been discussing this timeline and we can't roll out some of these

options. But let me throw in a mitigating factor that we haven't discussed yet regarding the exoneration, if you will, of the family. It's very possible the family themselves had requested the sheriff to make that statement. You know, do your job for a week or so, two weeks. That's what I think happened. And it could be Savannah saying, look, you've got to do something. You've got to do something. You know, do your job for a week or so. You know, you've got to do something here. My family didn't do this. I'm convinced. And that's under that pressure. 100%. That's what happened. He's an elected official. There's a lot of, you know, no doubt, Nancy had a lot of friends there. He maybe is thinking of the next election. Okay, well, without any other evidence, no evidence at this exact moment pointing directly at one of them.

Sure, I'll come out and say this. So, yeah, I wasn't sure that was clear for your, for your audience or not, but just wanted to get that. No, no, I agree. I think he said the day before that he really only talks to Savannah and he doesn't talk to her that much. He said she's got like a team that he deals with, but he barely talks to Tamas and barely talks to Annie. He said that. So to me, this is very clear that Savannah does not believe her family is involved at all. I'm not surprised by that. And she may be 100% right. They may not have had anything to do with this. But they have to understand their fair game, given that they were the last ones with her, and they're right down the road from her, and they were the ones who shouldered most of the burden and taking care of her. And I don't even

know what her life insurance policy said or her will, et cetera. So like all of that potentially makes them in the crosshairs, every family member with a missing person understands the family's going to be looked at, and they're going to be looked at by the media. And there are great, great, great things to having the media very interested in the Nancy Guthrie case. Great things. And there are downsides, too. And this is one of them. If you're an innocent family member, and they keep talking about whether you had something to do with it. And it is a very small price to pay for having this amount of media attention on your loved ones missing person's case. Because the media will help get this solved. The media's already come up with great leads,

great clues, great information. I'm sure that law enforcement is using, and they will continue to. But they're the ones who keep the public interested, and the public is the one that keeps the pressure on the police. All right? So, like, you do not want the media to go away, and you do not want the media to stop asking questions. And much in the same way, you know, you can't be a public figure like a Megan Markle

and go to all of the openings and then say, oh, but don't cover the mean things about me. Don't say my show sucked. That's how this works, too. Like, the media is involved because you asked us to be there. You asked us to continue covering it. You keep putting out messages. We're putting them on our shows. You can't say there can be no scrutiny of the family.

And you can't do it directly and you can't do it through the sheriff. It's not how press works. We're going to keep this going. If you're looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider River Bend Ranch. Their steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real, high-quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein, complete, and contains all nine essential amino acids your body needs to function. It also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it's raised and where

it comes from. That's where River Bend Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, Riverben Ranch has been building an elite black Angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. River Bend Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the USA. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics, and the beef is processed at the ranch in their award-winning USDA inspected facility. No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible, healthy, and flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Order today at Riverbendranch.com and use the promo code Megan to get $20 off your first order. Hey, everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM.

It's called the Megan Kelly Channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Morin Callahan, Emily Dyshysh, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news, only on the Megan Kelly channel, Sirius XM 11, and on the Sirius XM app. And we're back now with our panel. Okay, guys, so when we, when we. left off, we were discussing how you got to take the good with the bad. The media is going to

speculate. It's going to do its thing. It's going to talk about possible suspects and possible leads. It's not all great. It's not all rainbows and unicorns either. Well, that's the nature of the game. Yeah, absolutely. And I think I was seeing your piece that you did, Megan, about influencers and about influences actually contributing to the theory testing, to the possible suspects, to potential avenues in the same way as Maureen and Fitz and myself are exploring different avenues with yourself as to what the actual sheriff is doing, what the investigation is looking at. And I mean, we're seeing ourselves from a professional perspective of us doing this on the daily grind that there are so many flaws in how this process is being followed.

And Maureen was bringing up, obviously, during this break, you know, an interesting point about the family entering the house. And I passed the bat on to you, Boreen. Well, I just, I was watching a breakdown on a test that I've come to love in the last couple weeks, which is called the interview room. And it's a bunch of season, four season detectives that have about 150 years experience in all kinds of things from patrol all the way through homicide and everything in between and with the doctor on there. But they were breaking down a number of things. And the one thing that really caught my attention was the things that are missing from the timeline.

And one of them was, how do the family enter the house? I always wondered, why is that such a big, When? When the family came over after Mass. Sorry, I should have made that clear. When they came over the day they found her, when they realized that she wasn't at the church service at her friend's house, how did they get into the house? Did they go in the back door and leave it a jar? Did they enter the keypad? Because if you look at the timeline, it has what time she went in, 948 the night before, and that the door closed at 950. Does anyone on earth really believe that an 84-year-old woman with a walker gets out of a car, walks through a garage, gets in the house, and is in the other person gets out within two minutes?

And didn't the sheriff say at one of his first pressers that the family helped her get into the house and gets settled? Well, there's no way all that's happening in two minutes. You're like, hey, mom, you're good. Let me turn the lights on. Is everything cool? All right. We'll see you tomorrow. you know, that's a five-minute interaction.

And I just don't understand why something like, where did they enter? Could the back door have been a jar because that's where they came in and they forgot to close it? Okay, that's a good data point. There's just silly things that are missing that belong in the timeline.

And no one knows why and no one will tell us. The Bureau's not going to tell us. Yes. That is a very good point. You're right. when you think about it, like, I have an 84-year-old mom. And she's mobile. She's limited in her mobility, too.

Though you try to mess with her, you're going to get the cane right in between you. You know what. She's, she, don't mess with my mom. But she would take a while. Definitely, she would take a while once we got her to the house. And like you say, you don't just like open up the grass door, kick her out, be like, bye, mom. You know, and they're 84. You do.

You make sure. Yeah, you get them in. You walk with them. You get them into the house. You make sure they're okay. And then you leave and you close the door. That's a good point that no one has really spoken to that. I have two other things I got to get to, including this.

The sheriff was asked about this reporter. There's a reporter named Brianna Whitney. She works for Arizona family. We discussed it the other day. And she came out with this on Sunday as an exclusive. Again, she's not some crazy reporter. She's done good reporting in this case. And this is what she said inside, I think it's 55B.

Hi, guys. We are now able to independently confirm some new information in the Nancy Guthrie investigation. This is from an inside source that is now reportable. I want to take you through the new information we've learned. We can now report investigators now believe this was a burglary gone wrong. We've interviewed multiple experts since this began, who also said based on the evidence, the surveillance video, and other aspects of this case.

that they also believed this was not an intended kidnap. Okay, so none of us bought that when last we talked. And the sheriff doesn't either. He was asked about it here in SOT 55. And I talked to him about this reporting that has been out there, not repeated by us, that this was a burglary gone wrong. The sheriff said it was not. Listen again to the sheriff.

You just said you, and your briefings, you believe it's a kidnapping. I believe it was a kidnapping. Targeted kidnapping. Yes, I believe whoever did that knew what they were up to. So do you believe... Knew who they were after. Okay, so he's gone a little further there. So he's debunking her reporting, saying we do not believe that.

They do not believe it was a burglary gone wrong, that we do believe it was a, quote, targeted kidnapping. So that's a little bit more. I'm not sure if he said targeted kidnapping before, meaning this was about the fact that it was Nancy Guthrie, which is very interesting. So that's not a burglary gone wrong. It's either somebody who didn't like Nancy or somebody who didn't possibly like Savannah, but somebody who went in there looking to take this 84-year-old woman because she was Nancy Guthrie, which is very interesting, is it not, Maureen? It's very interesting, but I'm not going to hold him to it because chances are he's going to change his comment tomorrow.

Yes, fair enough. Fair enough. Let's not spend too much time speculating about it. right because who knows but i like that wasn't an accident fits that he he said as much as he did well wait what am i saying it might have been purposely purposely done on accident uh and and his use of the term kidnapping the linguist i think he may be referring to abduction there's there's you know difference kidnapping has different legal connotations that is being done for profit or some other thing of value in in that regard so uh it was an abduction i would agree with it there but let me go

back to the burglary part. I worked a lot of burglaries as a police officer and later in the FBI in New York. Commercial burglaries are at night. Residential burglaries are during the day. Statistically, we're in the high 90 percentile of when they happen. Burglars don't want to confront people. A lot of them are scared cats. I'll use a little kid term. If they see someone in the house, they want to get out of it, especially if you have the mask going already. And most burgers don't even have to wear a mask like that if they think the house is unoccupied, whatever, which of course maybe wasn't. He had a mask on. Get the hell out. Run. The other thing I'd like to know about the Tucson area, we were half seriously joking about this, Megan, what kind of a place is Tucson to live now?

All these randos outside with backpacks and throwing things around. I need context. Are there other residential burglaries or even peeping Tom's reported within a 10-mile radius, right frankly, the whole city of Tucson, the whole metropolitan, metropolitan area. There's definitely a peeping town who is about 10 miles away, which we did cover. Yeah, we've seen that person. But are there other burglaries? That's a specialized nighttime burglaries in a residence. That's a whole special type of, you know, you hear about the cat burger.

They kind of make them sexy in the movies and all. But, you know, these are usually just just random, you know, half-ass criminals or do this stuff. I just can't imagine this guy is all geared up for this in a house that is not overly ostentatious. If he did any research at all, an 84-year-old woman, she's not going to keep a lot of cash around necessarily. It just wouldn't be worth the effort. The risk he is taking would not be worth the payoff for a burglary as far as I'm concerned. This was an abduction plan. And you burgle, you burgle the house.

A burglary has a specific meaning in the law, too. It means like you've broken into a house and you intend to rob it. It's different than a robbery. But so burglary, you break in, you want to rob the home of its goods, and all you take is the infirm 84-year-old Will? Yeah. It's a fail. It doesn't work, doesn't it. That's a real fail as a burglary.

It doesn't scan. I mean, there are just too many contributing factors. I mean, we looked at and we discussed obviously the weapon that he was wearing overtly the wrong, a semi-automatic in a revolver holster. I mean, that was used, you know, incompetently. but visibly, and more often than not, that is used to suppress any resistance by someone that you might be looking to abduct, rarely used in the capacity of a burglar

who's anticipating coming into a fire, as Fitzs. So there was that. Also, I do not know of many cases where a home invasion or a burglary has resulted in any victims being then removed from the property. If someone is injured or harmed, they're left in the property itself.

And if they've gone to the trouble of wearing gloves to try and conceal their identity and masks, then ultimately, unless it's, you know, even if it was an assassination, the body is left there, but trying to leave as little evidence as possible as to who was behind it. But for her to be removed, but there to be blood, obviously blood scatters outside the front of the property.

It doesn't scan as a burglary whatsoever in my book. It's an abduction. It's an abduction. until a ransom is issued. And I think one of the biggest problems, Megan, is that this case garnished so much publicity so quickly. I think these guys, I've been, I've worked against Mickey Mouse kidnappers, amateur kidnappers in the past.

You know, they're scared people. They're not professionals. And that's why I'm not buying the over the border into Mexico necessarily by a cartel or an organized crime group necessarily. But these were amateurs who were looking maybe to make a buck. this wasn't a particularly affluent area. They were probably looking for a low-yield express kidnap. But because it garnished so much publicity, I think they've run scared.

I have to say, I wonder, too, like we've talked about the family two miles away from Nancy for all the obvious reasons. What other family is there? I'd love to know more about the Guthrie family. Are there, like, extended family in the area? You know, even like long-term friends of the family who might have gotten a cockamamie idea. about that's Savannah Guthrie's mom. You know, I bet she'd pay. Like, it should go beyond family.

Like, she grew up there. So there's going to be a lot of friends who've known the family for a long time, you know, maybe not actual friends anymore, who are looking at Nancy Guthrie and Savannah's bank account as a solution to their problems. I'm sure law enforcement is looking at all of this. There's no question she's going to have friends in the area who know that that's her mom from having grown up there.

So, like, the, quote, family words should be extended out to what cousins are there, what aunts and uncles are there, what third cousins are there, who may feel less of an emotional affinity for the family, but may be aware of the situation of, you know, Savannah and her husband, he makes money, too. He works for the NFL. By the way, the husband, this was so wrong. TMZ, I don't know what you're doing in this case. But the husband, his name is Michael Feldman, was coming back to, you. Tucson from having been, I think, home with their kids. And TMZ got him at the airport in this tape here and kept asking him the questions. It's just, it makes you feel so uncomfortable. Here's

the tape. It's out 69. Michael, how are you, sir? Michael, how's the family holding up? Is there anything you can say? It's my. All right. Michael, is there anything you want to say to the people who have done this? Michael, how's the family holding up? Anything you can say? Thank you. Okay, so this was, I don't know if it was a TMZ reporter or if it was just a stringer, but TMZ posted it. So clearly they bought the tape either way. And I mean, you can't lose your humanity in covering a case like this. You know, it's like that guy

is absolutely suffering. His wife is suffering. Their two children are suffering because it's their grandma, it's their mother who's doing these tearful. You know, Maureen is just like, this is what gives the press a bad name, among other things. It absolutely does. It's just terrible, especially I was thinking of his kids and how he's trying to keep his, he probably loved his mother-in-law, by all accounts, that that guy that came to the door could have come to the door in the daytime, and she would have let him in and shown him where everything was just to get rid of him. She seemed so kind. And for, you know, for the little kids to have to suffer through this loss or this this freak show of what's happening with this case.

You know all their friends are asking them at school. You know, their neighbors are always looking at them. It's very, very, it's pulling, it's really hurting those children. And so the father is hurt and he's trying to support his wife and Ban do his job. It's, it's just a lot. And it was just in very, very bad taste, in my opinion. Guys, listen to this. As we're discussing the possibility the sheriff's statement of targeted kidnapping and the possibility that somebody understanding, I mean, it could have just been about Nancy Guthrie, but the odds are it has something to do with the rich daughter.

I mean, I think that's probably the smarter bet. Fox News reporting, this is the headline, internet user, they don't know who, searched for Nancy Guthrie's address and daughter's salary before today host's mother vanished. This is literally breaking after the discussion we just had. It's crazy.

I don't know how you can tell this. Fox News is citing Google Trends. An internet user appears to have searched for Nancy Guthrie's home address in the weeks prior to her suspected abduction Google Trends shows. Last week, the FBI released a description of the individual scene. They're talking about the guy, 59, 510 with the Ozark Trail Hiker backpack. Other identifying items. Hold on. Read more.

Fox News Digital has learned that mysterious Google searches for Nancy's address and Savannah's salary occurred before her disappearance. Google Trends Records show there was one search for Guthrie's address in the Catalina foothills between June 21st and June 28th, 2025 by someone in Arizona. They can tell you exactly where the search came from. The address was searched again once on January 11th, 2020. 26. That's one of the dates that the sheriff's office is asking people to check their ring cameras for. This is getting creepy. The January 11th date also surfaced in a message on the ring camera. This guy's in my head. Let's see. A Pima County Sheriff's Department captain replied to the post asking users to look for the verified post. Okay, but blah, blah. The man questioned. Hold on. Sorry, I'm reading live. Where's the part about it?

him searching savannah. Free offense behavior. We talked about this week. Yep. Wait, stand by. My crack producers

texted it to me. They can read faster than I can. There were two separate, which one is it, Debbie? Is it the, which text? Do you have three from you here?

There were also two separate Google image searches for Nancy's address in Arizona. One, again, sometime between March 1st and 8th, 2025.

Oh, Google image searches, guys. Google image searches in addition to like just typing in in the Google search bar. Okay, also two separate Google image searches for Nancy's address in Arizona. One was sometime between March 1st and 8th, 2025. The other was between November 30th and December 1st, 2025, specifically looking for images or a map of the home. In addition to the address in the days leading up to Nancy's disappearance, in the days leading

up to Nancy's disappearance, quote, Savannah Guthrie's salary was searched from Tucson, sometime between December 13th and 20th. For a comparison, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who grew up in New York City, generated one search for Anderson Cooper's salary in the New York City area between March 29th and April 5th. Fox News is Sean Hannity also grew up in New York, and Sean Hannity's salary was searched once between May 3rd and 10th, 2025. Whoa. What do you? make of this? Yeah, we've been talking about this since the beginning. Victimology about our victim, all the family members, friends of family members, but then going to the offender himself, what were they doing in the weeks, if not months, beforehand? One of them is obsessive,

you know, internet interest and usage, and who's looking up the parties here involved in this particular case? And, of course, that includes starting to buy materials, backpacks, ropes, you know, all these things, the uncle Mike Holster, whatever's in there. But it's no surprise to me at all, as we said earlier, and my partner and I are going to put out a, on our cold red podcast later today, the full profile of this person. The pre-offense behavior includes this type of activity. And if anyone knows the person, you know, and their computer has those images locked in there somehow or a search history, that's a very, that's a person who want to talk to and the tip line should be called. Yes. What do you think, Will? Well, I think, uh, I think, uh,

This is an absolute treasure trove. I mean, as Fitz said, this is the advanced reconnaissance. This is the research that's done in advance on a potential prospect. So I think there's going to be some reverse engineering against the IP address, which Google, no doubt, will be able to attribute to those searches, to actually see any other history, any other IP-associated data searches that have been undertaken throughout this period from 2025 right up until, obviously, the date of the instant itself. So, yeah, this is a very useful, very useful bit of a lead that can be now hunted through

and with Google's assistance, that they could be obviously warranted or subpoenaed to assist them on this. And ultimately, this is the sort of thing that Google would love to, no doubt, to be able to assist them with. I mean, so you've got, I'm just trying to go through the timeline here. So you've got November 30, between, they say, between November 30th and December 1st, someone's search for an image of Nancy's home. On January 11th, someone searched for Nancy's address and had also searched on June 21st, between the 21st and the 28th. So in the summer of 25, they served for Nancy's address. Then again, two weeks before the kidnapping. On March 1st and 8th, between March 1st and 8th,

they searched for images of Nancy's home and then again on November 30th and December 1st. Again, now we're coming up to within two months of the kidnapping. Yeah. And then on December 13th, between November, December 13th and December 20th, somebody searched for Savannah's salary. Now, I will say this as a newsperson, they often search for your salary. Right.

Like, I've seen that because there's all sorts of speculation online about what my salary is, what all newspersons' salaries are. by the way, they're like incredibly off, like so off every time they never get it. There's a whole video on YouTube about my, my lavish lifestyle. I'm like, oh, let's see. What do they have? Like, literally nothing in there is mine. Not the house, not the car.

Like, nothing. I'm like, okay. Details, details. It's good they're getting them wrong. It's good they're getting it wrong. Yes. It's very good. Yeah.

But it's so weird. Like things are made up. So, but I'm just saying it may not be as exciting as we think that they search for Savannah's salary because they do that when you're a public figure. But it's just a little, it's very eerie to see they searched for that. And within two weeks of that, they were searching for images of Nancy's home. And within three weeks of that, they were searching for Nancy's address. Now, we don't know if it's the same person. Yeah, that's what I was going to ask you. But if this, if these searches come back to the same person, Maureen, wow. I think if they can actually

join the dots together and if it can be attributed to the same IP address, for those searches, albeit in those different periods, that falls into what we'd call a traditional planning cycle or attack planning cycle. So, you know, there will be the selection of the potential prospect to kidnap if it was indeed a kidnap. They would then revisit, they'd look at that site again, see if there was any changes, see if there was any alterations.

Certainly if that, but I wouldn't have discounted, which is why all these ring and nest cameras of neighbours is going to be so essential to see if there's any repeated behavior. I mean, in the small area that she lives in, you know, Nancy lives in, you know, there will be a very easy pattern of the vehicles associated to the residents in that area. Any other vehicles other than delivery vehicles, if they're privately owned, will be very easy to identify whether they be, you know, vans, trucks, whatever it might be. Especially at one o'clock in the morning.

Why, yes, why would they be, and I don't know, And what I just quickly read, they didn't source this to law enforcement. So it's possible they say Fox News has learned. Okay, so it is sourced to law enforcement. Because there's nobody else who's calling Fox to tell them that they did this. They learned this. It's probably part of that public- law enforcement.

Why would law enforcement want us to know this? Well, first of all, it's a big lead. Secondly, they're not driving by this house in June and on these other dates well in advance of the abduction with masks on or at nighttime. So, I mean, I just think it would be fantastic if one of these clowns got a ticket on one of the speeding cameras because the speeding cameras don't record, but they do take your photo when you're driving through and that light goes off. And boy, wouldn't that be a bonanza of a tip? Or a Tesla, a Tesla camera, or the neighbor, maybe that's what they're doing with the neighbor's ring cam. Maybe it's not even

about getting, they already checked that one perhaps for the night she disappeared. Maybe they're going back to see whether anybody did a drive-by. The daylight on any of these dates. Exactly. Which they still should have done weeks ago, but that's okay. Yeah. But that, that's so eerie, you guys. That's, that, that, that is very eerie to me that, they've got somebody searching. I mean, as I say, it's not unusual to search for a public salary to search for the location of a public figure's mother's home, like to search for an image. Now, maybe somebody's visiting her. I don't know. It's like, that's not how you figure out where somebody lives, though. Like, if I'm going over, this happens all the time as a parent.

Your kid's got a play date with a family you don't know. You, you, you, you, you, you, like, who the hell enters, like, Google for, like, Joe Schmo's house that I've got to go to? That's not, and then image search on top of it. Predators. It becomes unusual when a person is kidnapped or abducted, whatever we're going to call it. Then you reverse engineer it. Then it becomes something highly valuable, potentially highly valuable. You're right.

Otherwise, if no crime ever happens, it's no big deal. But if something bad does happen, that's when, in fact, it has to take on importance. And the investigator are, in fact, looking at that. And hopefully, we just got this information in the last, you know, half hour. I assume people have been on this for days now, if not even longer. That is just eerie. That new information is eerie. It's eerie, but it excites, I would say, Fitz and I are both, and I'm sure will. This is exciting news for us.

Because way back then, they weren't masking everything the way they would days before. So this is brilliant. And there's going to be days in between. A very smart thing to ask. Right, Maureen? Like, what a smart lead for somebody to pursue? Like, let's see if somebody searched these two things. That was a clever idea by some law enforcement officer.

Well, it's what you write in your subpoenas, any and all information related to this address and everything like that. But it also takes the detective having a conversation with the analyst, unless the FBI people are in there, which I believe that they are, and say, hey, what else can we check? Is there anything else? Show me what else your systems can do. And you sit there and you go through it.

And then they're like, well, there's the thing. thing that tells you how many people have looked at it. So it's these relationships that are built over years and these relationships that we develop sometimes very quickly because of evolving situations that we're able to come up with this stuff. So this is a proud moment. I'm very happy. I'm very happy for the team for this because this is exciting stuff. Yes.

I was just going to say where I was going to take us next was we need a new lead because was what the sheriff revealed and what's been revealed through just reporting by various outlets is the gun search. You know how they went to the gun stores and had the 40 pictures and the 40 names? That reportedly came up empty. They did not get any hits off of it. The DNA, as I said for now, has come up empty. There was another thing they did that came up empty. And I'm trying to remember what it was.

Megan, are you saying that? The point is they were running out of leads. Megan, are you saying that criminals don't buy their guns from gun stores that they may get them on the street? As it turns out, they may not be doing it the way the law-abiding citizens do it. Shocking. A quick question I've got, Megan, has there been any mention of Nancy's cell phone? Did they retrieve it in the house salt or did it vanish with her? And again, have they done any mapping against the cell phone?

because they should be able to, if it was taken with her, they would certainly be able to see possibly some of our location. All I know is it's separated from the pacemaker at 228 a.m. Right? Like I was, we were told, it could have been the watch, but I think it was the phone. Then there's been some dispute about whether your watch can connect to your pacemaker. I've heard said yes, I've heard said no.

The sheriff has been kind of elusive about, and I'm sure this is an intentional, like you've got to give him that. He can't give us everything. Like they do have to keep some details prized. So when they catch this perp, you know, they can, they can manipulate him into confessing and sort of dangle things in front of him. However, you guys do it. But my point is simply, I still to this day remain unclear on whether it was the pacemaker disconnected from the phone or the Apple watch. And I'm also unclear on whether, because when she first went missing and they were trying to say like, Savannah's mom is missing. And it was like, oh, she probably wandered off. You know, and they were like, no, no, no, no. Her keys are back here. Her purse is back here. Her phone is back here. And they did say phone at some point, but I'm not sure. I'm just not sure. He has not given us some big specific phone mapping piece of detail.

I imagine if Nancy Guthrie had her phone with her, we'd know by now. They'd probably have her by now, right? It's like, they'd have her. So I've got to guess she had neither her phone nor her watch. Because even when it's turned off, it's going to think. I mean, one of the things I would certainly want to look at is her call records as well. And because that could be quite indicative or certainly illustrate any kind of pattern of behavior in terms of any calls that have been received, any calls that she may have returned, that whether there were dropped calls. Because even if you have a caller, no ID, a call come into your cell phone, the network will still know what numbered are there.

Can I ask Fitz a quick question? Yeah. Fitz, what do you, what are your thoughts on one of Harry Levin's many letters? He can publish a book when this is done. But what are your thoughts on that last letter that said that she was seen in Mexico with people or whatever? Do you think that could have just been a redirection, like to try to pull the attention away from Tucson and put it, you know, well into Jexico? Just to remind the audience, this is not, this is from the person claiming he knows who the kidnappers are. Yes.

That he's not the kidnapper, but he knows. who they are, he saw them, and that they've got her south of the border. And by the way, there's now an update. There's another note, which I'm going to get to you after Fitz answers that question, Maureen. Yeah, it sounds to me, it's a term that I applied for the first time in the Unabom case. The term is contraindicator. It's against indications. Whoever put that out there, the reason is obvious to misdirect the investigation, go against the factors that are actually true. So again, it's something that the investigators will have to look at, but you don't spend a whole lot of time if it's that obvious that she's seen in Mexico like that.

Without other substantive information, I would call that a contraindicator, misinformation designed to throw off the investigation. Whether the person doing this is the one who actually committed the crime or is just playing some kind of a very sick game. That's what Jonathan Gillum was saying yesterday, that we were kind of scoffing at the Okay, yet another note from somebody who desperately wants our attention. I know who the kidnapper is. And for the low price of a Bitcoin and a half, I'll tell you. And he was saying, don't dismiss it too quickly because it could be the kidnapper, the actual kidnapper, looking to inject himself into the case in another way. And he said some 20% of perpetrators will do that. Like they want attention or they want to inject themselves or maybe they want to throw the bone in a different direction, to get people running down to Mexico when that's the last place they should go to look for her. So for that reason, we should look at the Harvey notes, at least with one eye. We don't have to be excited about them, but we should be looking at them.

And that brings me to the news that is just coming in. So let me just start with this, okay? This was literally last night, Harvey Levin on Sean Hannity, promising the following, SOT 68. We decided that we're not going to say if he sent us any more letters. Because if we say we got a letter today, and tomorrow you ask me, and I say we got a letter tomorrow, and then the next day we say, we're not going to talk about it. It tips off the kidnapper.

We're essentially saying, well, that's the day he gave us the information. We're just not going to say anything. He can, if he wishes, give us the information. And as we promised, we will pass it on to the FBI. Then there's a record that he supplied that information. Okay, and now today SOT 68C within like 15 hours of that. Watch. TMZ obtained another ransom note today. This is a highly sophisticated demand involving a form of crypto, not Bitcoin.

Now, it is demanding roughly the same amount as the demand letter we received, you know, shortly after the kidnapping, the $6 million demand. It's not exactly that, but it's close to that. The demand graphically describes the consequences if the demand is not met. It also involves the media, saying that the media essentially becomes a go-between, a trigger, if you will, for getting this ransom money. we have been asked not to be specific about any of that beyond what we've just said. We have forwarded this on to the FBI, and they are looking into it.

But you can definitely listen for more on CNN and Fox when Harvey makes his daily appearances later today, where he will be repeating all of the details. Okay, let's put to the side the absurdity of, we're not doing it ever again, because it's, but here I am again. Oh, something exciting. We can look back to me. should we discuss the substance of this ransom note, which does sound somewhat different from Mr. Give Me a Bitcoin and a half. In other words, it's different in that it's pretending,

I think, to be from the actual kidnapper. Or it is potentially from the actual kidnapper. I have a write-up of what he said. Another ransom note, highly sophisticated demand. I don't think we described the middle guy. You know, he got the first, the first demands from the person who wanted four million and then six million. And that person sent two. And those both went to the same Bitcoin account and neither was paid as far as we know. Then he got four more, I think four, three or four, three, whatever, from the middle guy who said, I know who the kidnapper is. They have herself in the border. Give me a Bitcoin and a half. And was pissed off that the FBI raised the reward from 50 to 100 in the middle of his demands for crypto, saying, I don't appreciate that. Whatever.

there's that guy. And now here seems to be a third offeror, who to me sounds like he's pretending to be or is the kidnapper. Another ransom note, highly sophisticated demand involving a crypto other than Bitcoin. Because, you know, there's like doge coin. There's other, it's not just Bitcoin if you're in the crypto market. The email demands a dollar amount similar to the $6 million ransom demand in that earlier email we received days after the kidnapping. It graphically, you heard him say, describes the consequences if the ransom isn't paid. I'm sure it's like, or she gets it. The new ransom demand email includes a crypto number different from the Bitcoin one that he got first round. We've forwarded it to the FBI, pointing out that anybody who tries

to scam the Guthrie family is going to get it. They're playing with fire. The FBI is going to get you and you're going to go to prison for a long time. Then says law enforcement sources involved in the investigation tell TMZ. The FBI has contacted Mexican federal law enforcement to spread the word to various police agencies. We told you, okay, so now he's moving on to. other news. Actually, this was the discouraging stuff I wanted to mention. They did not, they, TMZ is reporting law enforcement sources say they did not get any leads from the gun

stores and also reporting that an FBI team working with Walmart and other retailers to find who may have purchased some of the items the kidnapper was wearing. No breakthroughs so far. Quote, we are shaking the trees, says one law enforcement source to crack the case. But that's discouraging that no luck at Walmart, no luck at the gun stores.

Again, I want to know why they're sharing. Why is the FBI sharing that, guys? Why are they telling that to TMZ? And also, what do we make of this new, quote, ransom demand? I got Jim shaking his head. He's got it. Three words. Proof of life.

Everything else is superfluous. Of course, they're going to do the worst things than Mrs. Guthrie. Maureen and Will are shaking their heads, yes. Show us proof of life will take you serious. And you better show it that she's still alive. And that's the only way you're going to get it. And I'm, I like mincing words with people, or at least assessing when they do it, shaking, you know, whatever the terminology is, Walmart, you know, no lead so far or no promising lead so far. It doesn't mean they aren't focused on, you know, a certain, you know, delivery that came in and certain backpacks that went out at certain times.

And same with the gun shops. They're not going to put anything out there. If the FBI just says negative, I'm okay with that. All it means is they don't have enough ready to put cuffs on a guy. And I've been in, you know, task forces and putting, you know, PR, you know, statements together for the media. And you don't want to lie, but you don't want to let, don't forget, the offender is listening to this stuff too.

I'm still not unconvinced that he doesn't listen to your show, Megan. You have some good people on, and you really hosted well. So he may be listening to this. And we're telling him, you know, what may be happening next. But we're also saying, don't get too comfortable because the FBI doesn't necessarily because they're saying something in the negative doesn't mean something else has happened. So, but show me proof of life for these letters that are coming into Harvey and, and his other imaginary friends, and we'll see what happens from there.

And there's a reason they want to- Jim, I know you got to run. Thank you for being here to be continued tomorrow. Maureen and Will, let's keep going. Go ahead, Maureen. And there's a reason they want the media to be the intermediary because they won't have law enforcement scrutiny. I mean, if you're sending this, if you're sending this to the family, and law enforcement right away, or you want to interact with a law enforcement agency, you're going to have to suffer some scrutiny. And the number one thing is exactly what Fitz just said, which is proof of life. We haven't had any proof of life.

We're all trying to be optimistic, but it's getting more and more difficult. Show us something. Yeah, I mean. And the family begged for that, Will, on the first go-round. when we had those first two letters. I mean, I've seen my fair share of ransom demands, and it's generally going to be a family member who will be contacted in a kidnapping,

if it is indeed a kidnapping. And the first thing is, I mean, Harvey's claim of this newest demand, other than obviously it being for an inordinate amount of money, is that it's sophisticated. Nothing in what he shared with us would give me any indication of it being sophisticated whatsoever. But a good sophisticated approach will be to utilize a means of presenting, obviously, sufficient evidence. And it is that proof of life, as Maureen and Fitz both said, with that ransom demand.

Because then that isolates you amongst all the other claimants out there who are trying to chance their arm to say, we're the people you need to listen to. We're the people you need to take seriously. And this is our demand. And from that point forward, the whole thing, the whole thing, The email address, the redirect, doesn't go into TMZ. It goes directly to someone within the negotiation team, whoever it might be. I'm sure within the bureau, the private say to it would be someone within my team or me myself. And then we continue that communication and then we manage it from that point forward. But until that proof of life comes in, none of these demands are worth a jot.

So the fact that Harvey says they graphically describe the consequences if demands are not met suggests they're threatening to hurt her. But he doesn't say a word about proving that they have her. Yeah. So do you think, what do you think the FBI will is telling the Guthrie's right now about this? Well, Maureen's probably better place than me to speak on the FBI's actions. but from a standard negotiation team, they wouldn't be sharing necessarily any more information than we've had this demand,

and this is our assessment of it. In terms of any graphic description of what they're going to do to Nancy or to the hostage, that's irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything. It's intended to put fear into whoever they're appealing to to settle the ransom. So it doesn't have any credibility whatsoever unless it came without proof of life.

And it really is those keys, really words. What do you think about that, Maureen? Because after the first demand that went to Harvey that said, $4 million by Thursday, $6 million, if you wait until Monday, the family did come out three times. You know, they issued three video statements. We watched them. The three of them, then Cameron by himself,

then the three of them again. And then even, I can't remember whether there's the Savannah Solo video, I think it came out after. But in any event, they put out multiple videos. after it, trying to get proof of life, you know, trying to get. Like they said, we need to know that you have her. Clearly they didn't get it and they didn't pay those demands and the deadlines came and went. And so do you think if you're a law enforcement for your FBI right now advising the Guthries,

do you say it looks like somebody new? It's a different kind of crypto. It's a different account. You might consider doing one of the videos. I would say, I mean, these predators have seen that. the, just the breaking of Savannah Guthrie online and her siblings, but particularly her, especially that last video. And so they're taking advantage of that. But without proof of life, this is, it's just a bunch of puddles on the street. You, how, the only thing that's going to

raise this above that and make it worth mentioning is the proof of life. I could sit here and talk to you about the consequences of, of someone finding the perpetrator in this. We're, we're going to do all these horrible things to them, whatever. That means nothing to anybody. You know, they have to come up with proof of life. And they're not able to do that. And we're in the third. But would you tell them to come out and demand it now? I mean, like, because my thinking is this, if you, if you took the first note seriously enough to put the family in front of a camera and make them do what they did, I realize that one didn't pan out. But like if I'm thinking if you're FBI, you kind of have to take each one of these somewhat seriously.

And so wouldn't they just start the same playbook again saying, do you want to do it again? I don't think it's a great idea to put the family through this. I certainly wouldn't read all the graphic details to the family, especially if it's from someone that isn't offering anything other than a word, you know, words. I just, I just won't. I mean, there's two. The stakes are too high. There's too much money involved. There's too many people involved. So many of these things don't go together. It's like a bunch of people trying to cram square pegs into a round hole. It's just a game of cruelty and rope-a-dope for this family. And no, I wouldn't do it. I wish Harvey Levin would just stop platforming these people. Just give it to the FBI and forget about it. Because half of what they're doing, Yeah. Stop.

I mean, he's as bad as the sheriff in many ways. You're saying Harvey should give whatever he gets to the FBI and stop making a public spectacle of it because that's exactly what these attention seekers want. Yes. Let the professionals handle this. I agree. Well, you're shaking him.

Yeah, totally. I mean, he's injecting himself unnecessarily into this whole situation. He should be demonstrating some politas and some discretion and sensitivity to the family. Supporting and managing a family during an extortion attempt or a kidnapping or even a missing person or reduction is absolutely critical. You've got to keep them as balanced as possible because they're on a very, very thin line emotionally in trying to manage it because it's something entirely alien to them. So when you have a character from TMZ that is broadcasting regularly saying, oh, we're very important, we've received this amazing sort of a Branson demand, which, you know, Maureen and I and anybody in our world knows has zero substance

until it's supported by a proof of life. And the first thing is, is that there are certain things in that negotiation process, Megan, that you don't necessarily want the family to need to know. You don't lie to them, and lying is the worst thing. last thing you should ever do. But it's so important that you withhold certain information, which is unnecessary for them to know. So it could be the graphic content of the repercussions or what could possibly happen. And we try and keep that as quiet as possible. But the key thing is to be as brutally hard and spoiled with the kidnappers as well and to say, oh, the potential

kidnappers and say, if you have her, we don't have any communication with you. We are going to discount you unless you can provide us with proof of life. And unless you provide that proof of life, you are just white noise. And what difference does the highly sophisticated make? What difference does that make? Are you trying to say that unsophisticated people don't cause great harm to others? Everyone's capable of it. Not everyone, but a lot of different people.

Right. And I don't even know if that makes it more or less likely it's the actual kidnappers because I'm not sure we think that guy in the front porch was highly sophisticated. But that's an interesting, see, I mean, I will say this, Harvey's not exactly injecting himself. Whoever's sending him the notes is injecting him into it. But I also think, to me, he's been milking it, which brings a distaste. Yeah. Like, I actually, I wouldn't be as hard on him as if he came up and said, this has happened. Let me report to you what it is, and now I'm moving on. I don't know. As a media person, you know, we're news people. And so, like, that's our first

order of business is to report the news. It would be very hard to just not tell anybody you had this. I understand the position he's in there. I think it's like then seeing him do the press tour after each one of these where he's being too cute by half. Like it said this, but I'm not going to go further than that. I'm going to lift the dress up a little, but not all the way. And then let me titillate over on CNN. And I want to do it on Fox. And I'm going to go back on TMZ and do it. And then you just wind up feeling like this is a guy in the midst of a PR campaign. And TMZ has had a rough little go of it because they were caught laughing when Charlie Kirk was assassinated. You could hear the laughter.

And people got very angry with them to the point where they did a follow-up report saying that they weren't laughing about Charlie's murder. It was a car chase or something that they were watching that led to the cries you heard in the newsroom. And many people questioned that because they think TMZ leans left. Harvey was just on camera arguing bitterly with Mark Garagos about whether Don Lemon should have been charged. Harvey was very much on Don Lemon's side. And so to me, it's no accident like he keeps going on Fox. Like, here I am. I'm the savior.

It's like he's rebuilding, he hopes, I think, with a right-leaning audience. So it just has a distasteful feel to it. And I have nothing against Harvey whatsoever. I just, it's too much. You should not look like you are, like, wanting to make it about you more than you have to while the family is suffering. That's my own media analysis. It's salacious. But, Megan, I wanted to pick up on something a little earlier, you mentioned, which was about the level of professionalism by the individuals at the door.

Now, it's not uncommon if there were, if there is a, if it is indeed a kidnapping, and let's disassociate from all the nonsense letters. that Harvey's been receiving, but let's take it in isolation. If Nancy was kidnapped, it's not unusual, and I've dealt with these groups before, where you'll have low-level, sort of more basic criminals that will affect the actual snatch, who will do the abduction, and they do it on behalf of whoever is going to be then coordinating the ransom demands and the exchange, obviously, later down the line. So although they were pretty, you know, slipshod, the guy at the front door with the gun hanging outside of waistband.

That doesn't mean that they weren't necessarily there on behalf of someone else. I agree. I know. And like as much as we say he didn't look sophisticated because he didn't to me, he got her. He's gotten away with it for two and a half weeks now. Notwithstanding the report that there are 400 law enforcement officers on this, according to TMZ, the leads at Walmart are dead for now. the leads of the gun stores have gone nowhere. So far, no DNA has been left behind that's been

useful in any way. No fingerprints. No nothing. I mean, right now, it looks like Nancy Guthrie has disappeared without a trace, Maureen. It does. But, you know, this new IP thing that came out with the person looking at her address and everything, that's going to be a new, a whole new line of inquiry in a totally different area if that IP address is, in fact, in a different region than the Walmart lead may or the Walmart inquiry may blow up again meaning whoever ordered the stuff

came from this other area as opposed to right where she is. They're looking for a number of things and they obviously have all the supply chain information on those backpacks where they went and to whom. They're trying to couple it up. They're

merging and purging their searches with all the items they think may have been purchased by Walmart and then narrowing it down as necessary and seeing if anyone ordered three or four things at different times. And so it's a lot of that, even though it hasn't come up, it hasn't been fruitful yet, I think now that there's a new location involved, hopefully with that new IP address,

that could come back to life and help. I hope. And I'm just looking back at the report. Yeah, it says Google Trends, shows there was one search for Guthrie's address between June 21st and June 28th by someone in Arizona. So they have, they already have either the general address of the person or probably, you guys tell me, by the time they're releasing this to us, they probably know exactly who searched for it. Do they know?

What would you think, more than? Yes, I do. I think they would absolutely know that. Yeah. And hopefully when you look at something like that, like what's the location, the next step is going to be what phones are tied to that location. Let's geofense it for, you know, the past three weeks or four weeks or let's also do a geofense on that particular day and see who was in that house, what phones were in that house. And let's start looking for those phones around January 11th, anywhere in that area around that Circle K or any place around there. And because they may turn them off or they may render their phones unable to pay.

for in different ways when they get close to the house but they probably didn't do it. People can't live with their phones more than two miles. You know, they put them back on. I mean, the accuracy, and, you know, Morin's absolutely right in terms of the geo-fence,

the accuracy will be very much based on the cell site positions. And if there are sufficient cell site positions around there and cell sites, then they can get the accuracy really down to about sort of five, ten feet. which is sufficient to be able to determine how many phones were in proximity, obviously, to Nancy and her cell phone.

But, yeah, the biggest challenge will be, and I hope it leads to something that the IP addresses for those various different searches for the images, for the address itself, they all match up. That's going to be key. Well, I'm relieved to hear it doesn't end with, you know, if the person had used a VPN, for example,

it could be like, coming from Brazil. You know, I mean, it sounds like, possibly, if it's like from Arizona, possibly the person did not mask themselves at all when they did the search. That's what it felt like, yes. Well, God, I was just going to ask you something important. Oh, oh, I know. So Will, it must be said, this is good news for Tomas and the other family members because they would certainly not need to go searching for Nancy Guthrie's address and would have a ballpark idea of Savannah's salary. like the family would not need to search where Nancy lived. This is support if it's related.

And it, you know, we don't know for sure. But if it's related, this is support for the, you know, Savannah stalker or Nancy stalker, Nancy disgruntled employee. I don't know. An employee, again, if there's a landscaper or whomever, they would know where Nancy lives. So, but if this thing is related, this is support for, I guess, the most likely lane is the stalker of Savannah Lane.

Yeah, one will hope, I mean, for their sake. However, that is unless they are collaborative to it, if there are actors working on behalf of Thomas or the family or someone else that is close to Nancy, then they may very well have double-checked that information, may have done their own searches. I would doubt, unlike a professional outfit, that they would have run what we call clean protocols. So like Maury was saying about going into the location with their own cell phones, you know, people don't want to be parted from their cell phone. It's always absolutely right on that. But a professional outfit wouldn't go anywhere with any ID on them, anything that could

identify them. Their cell phone technology-wise, you know, even on the vehicle, any GPS that might be there, again, removed. But yes, one would hope it's not connected to the family, but I don't think unlike the sheriff, my jury is still out. Mine too. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Yeah, mine too. Well, my mind is open. My mind is open to whatever. evidence they come up with. Yeah. Me too. I mean, the one thing I'm convinced of, and it sounds like the sheriff is with me there, and I think you guys agree, is there's no way they accidentally stumbled upon Nancy Guthrie, Savannah's mom. That didn't happen. I agree with him, targeted, either targeted because they wanted to get rid of her or targeted because they wanted to steal her and hijack the family for a bunch of millions. But she was chosen for a reason,

either a sick and tired family member or somebody who wanted to inherit or somebody who wanted to extort millions of dollars out of the Guthrie's. So I feel like the circle's getting smaller. It's getting a little smaller by the second. Again, undermining burglary. So that reporter really seems to have gotten it wrong, at least so it seems today. All right, that's all we're going to do today. That was a lot. Every day we get together, it seems like something happens.

And the investigation takes another turn. and thank you for helping us navigate at you too. We appreciate it. Thank you, Megan. We'll, Maureen, see tomorrow, I'm sure. Thank you. Okay. And thanks to all of you.

Here we are four hours later. Two hours. Did we do a show on Epstein? I think we did. I vaguely recall it. It happened many hours ago. We're going to go have some lunch. It's almost dinner time now.

And thank you so much to all of you for listening and making the show possible. I'm so grateful to all of you. I love getting your notes and your theories of the case. You can keep them coming. Email me. at Megan Kelly.com, and you can also make comments on our social media. I do go and read them, and I love hearing from you guys.

I love hearing your thoughts on the whole case. You've been very smart and very helpful, as always. Lots of love. We'll talk tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.