The Young Turks - Marjorie Greene Exclusive - September 8, 2025

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/TYT and use code TYT and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! House Speaker Mike Johnson bizarrely claims that Donald Trump was an FBI informant. Marjorie Taylor Greene announces amendments to cut foreign military funding. Tucker Carlson releases docuseries questioning the government's account of September 11th. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Reading, playing, learning. Stellist lenses do more than just correct your child's vision. They slow down the progression of myopia. So your child can continue to discover all the world has to offer through their own eyes. Light the path to a brighter future with stellar lenses for myopia control.

Learn more at SLR.com and ask your family eye care professional for SLR Stellas lenses at your child's next visit. Ontario, the wait is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget online casino is live, bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your fingertips. Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting, signing up is fast and simple. And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library. of the best slots and top-tier table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn

any mundane moment into a golden opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots, challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action, all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you can go for the gold at Golden Nugget Online Casino? Gambling problem, call Connects Ontario, 1866-531-260, 19 and over, physically present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. See golden nuggettcasino.com for details. Please play responsibly.

I want to try and get to heaven if possible. I'm hearing I'm not doing well. Well, hello. The girl! All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Jane Cougar, Anna Kasparian, with you guys. Big day ahead, not only do we have a load of stories for you guys, Tucker's got a special on 9-11 apparently, that ought to be interesting.

Ukrainians can go in a direction that could be disastrous. We talk about that in a little bit, plenty of Epstein news, was Donald Trump an FBI informant? That's the claim of the Speaker of the House, at least for a little while. So the implications of that are super relevant, but most importantly today, Marjorie Taylor Green, will be on the program in a little bit. And she's going to tell us about something dramatic she's going to do tomorrow. So big news here on the Young Turks, Marjorie Taylor Green a little bit with very important news about what's going to happen in Congress next. All right. So before we get to that, we've got some news for you guys. Well, before we get to Marjorie Taylor

Green's interview, I thought it would be worth kind of doing a follow up with a pretty bold claim that was made by House Speaker Mike Johnson. And he's not saying that what Epstein did as a hoax, it's a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Marilago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down. Well, there you have House Speaker Mike Johnson telling CNN's Manu Raju that President Donald Trump was an FBI informant who helped take Epstein down.

which is a bold claim to make. And it also happens to be untrue, which is probably why he had his office walk back the statement on Sunday, issuing a statement that reads, quote, the speaker is reiterating what the victim's attorney said, which is that Donald Trump, who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago, was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator. Now, that's not what the victim's attorney said, number one. Number two, referring to someone as an FBI informant is very different from someone who might have cooperated or answered questions from investigators in regard to Jeffrey Epstein. And one other thing that's important to remember is that Trump and Epstein were one-time friends

who did have a falling out. But the falling out wasn't over Epstein's disgusting predestine. behavior, the falling out, and Trump himself has admitted this, had to do with a fight the two of them had over a property in 2004. Trump is the one who ended up winning and obtained that property, even though Epstein also wanted it. But Brad Edwards, an attorney who represents many of the victims, told reporters that Trump has done an about face on Epstein since 2009. I'm going to read you those quotes in just a minute. But, Jank, did you want to jump in? Yeah. So look guys, this Mike Johnson thing is really interesting. And no, I don't think he's lying. I think he's telling the truth.

You think that Trump was an FBI informant? Yes, I do. Oh, interesting. Why do you think that? Number one, that's a super weird thing to make up. You don't just slip up and go, oh, yeah, you know, John Ida-Role is a CIA agent. You're like, wait, what? Why would that even pop into your head? Okay, because it's also very specific. It's not, oh, he helped loosely. He said he was an. FBI informant. I know, but when a politician speaks, they're usually lying. And oftentimes they say very specific things that end up being totally true. I know, but think about it. Okay. Being an FBI informant is a disaster.

That is not a thing that Trump would want anyone to know. Why? Because it's a bad idea to turn in a child predator? No, no, no, no, no, no, because usually they don't just come and go, hey, Bob, down the street, you want to be an FBI informant? No, they turn you into an FBI informant after they have evidence against you. Oh my, you know what, you're right, you're right, I hadn't even considered that. Yeah, so that's why when he slips up, he even has like this little hitch in his head

where he goes like, oh like, oops, I shouldn't have said that. You could almost see it in the video. Can we cue that video up again? Yeah, that's actually a really good point, Jank. I hadn't thought about that. Wow, okay, so. There's more on that in a second, but yeah, let's see if we can see when he says it and how he reacts. immediately after.

And he's not saying that what Epstein did as a hoax. It's a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Marilago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down. Did you see it? He's like he was an FBI informant. He did that, like, oh wait, I shouldn't have said that, right?

So now I'm over interpreting, you could say, hey, don't worry about the video. Look, I didn't see what you saw, that's not important. What's important is he said he was an FBI informant. That is not a random thing you make up. Then why is he walking it back today? He's walking it back today because people are going to start asking the question I'm asking, which is why? Why was he an FBI informant?

And the number one group of people who are FBI informants are mobsters as an example who were caught and are going to go to prison for 20, 30 years of the rest of their life unless they turn on their boss, right? And so then they become an informant. Nobody ever becomes an informant out of the blue. You're not work, Trump wasn't working at the FBI. Right, and the FBI flips them into an informant. So then it's, you can't help but ask why, what did Trump do?

That is such a good point, and I hadn't thought of that. Now, is that true though, that you, no one is ever an FBI informant unless they're like essentially coerced into doing it because they engaged in wrongdoing and they don't want to be prosecuted for it? So no, no, I can't say that it's true 100% of the time, but is it true an overwhelming percentage of this time? Yes. So I can envision a couple of scenarios. Somebody's in a, maybe in a family or in a gathering that they didn't realize had bad guys in it. And then the FBI approaches them and says, you're a good guy. You were in this, you know, gathering, but you didn't know, but they're mobsters. So can you be an informant for us? Because you would save a lot of lives or, et cetera. So it's not impossible. But the reason why that's very rare is because most of the time,

And the standard operating procedure is you flip people into becoming informants. But Jake, it's amazing because now what we're talking about at this moment sheds some light on what is being referenced in this quote that I'm about to read to you. So this is Brad Andrews, an attorney who represents many of Epstein's victims. So this individual told reporters that Trump has done an about face on Epstein since 2009. Edward said that when he spoke to Trump in 2009, Trump was friendly to the victim's plight and did not think that it was a hoax and was trying to help.

And now it seems like all of a sudden somebody is in his ear and he's not, Edward said. So I'm hoping he'll come back to where he was back in 2009 be on the side of the victims and stand with us. Now go ahead. Jump it in again there. So guys, look, there is some percent of chance You put any percentage, you know, usually based on your perspective on what that is.

That Trump just volunteered because he knew Epstein, he did, right? So that makes it plausible. And he was in the same social circle. So that makes it plausible that Trump raised his hand and said, hey, I'd like to help your investigations, right? Okay. Or the reason why the attorney for the victims is saying, oh, yeah, back in the day, Trump was really helpful was because he was an FBI informant who was forced to be. helpful and was helpful to the victims back then.

So that's interesting and amazing in and of itself. But then what he's alluding to is perhaps more remarkable. Why did he switch to now being opposed to the investigations and calling them a hoax? When the attorney knows, the victims know, everybody knows, he knows it's not a hoax. He was in fact involved in it. So now it's because Mike Johnson, maybe he had a verbal hiccup, right? Right? But when the attorneys for the victims confirm that Trump did help, it shows that he was involved. And again, normally I don't pick somebody out of the street to be involved.

They pick someone who was already involved and that they had evidence against. Well, with all of that context in mind, you know, Congressman Thomas Massey, a libertarian, who is really at odds with Donald Trump on this issue, recently went on ABC's this week. And he had some thoughts of his own. Let's take a look. The lawyers for the victim said that Donald Trump had been helpful in 2009 in their case by giving them information. But being an informant implies some formal connection and ongoing relationship with the FBI. I don't know what that's all about. I think the speaker needs to clarify that.

And if it's a hoax, why was Donald Trump an informant to a hoax? This episode is brought to you by prize picks. You and I make decisions every day, but on prize picks, being right can get you paid. Don't miss any of the excitement this season on prize picks where it's good to be right. All right, look, the football season is getting underway, and I love it, and I'm locked in on prize picks. For me, it's the perfect way to test your football knowledge against the projections, and I love to test my knowledge in politics and in sports. So I was looking at the app this morning, and it was fun, it was simple,

You're not dealing with complicated spreads. You're just picking if a player will go more or less on their projected stat. So if you're looking at Sequin Barclay and they're saying more or less than one rushing touchdown, well, I like Seekwon a lot. Of course, it depends on who's playing, but I got that at more. You're looking at Joe Burrow more or less than two and a half passing touchdowns? Oh, I love that one. I'm going to go more on that too.

But your call and you see how super easy this is. And if you get it right, you win money, which I also love. So look, I love this app. It's so simple. You just pick two to six player projections. If you get your picks right, you can cash it. It's the best way to get action on sports in more than 40 states, including California, Texas, and Georgia. Prize picks puts their users first so all withdrawals are fast, safe, and secure. Price picks offers Venmo, Apple Pay, MasterCard, and more for quick and easy deposits into your accounts this football season. Price Picks also offers injury reboots if one of your players leaves the game in the first half and doesn't return.

Price Picks won't count it as a loss. So download the app today and use code TYT to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code TYT to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. Prize picks. It's good to be right. Grab a coffee and discover Vegas level excitement with BetMGM Casino,

now introducing our hottest exclusive, friends, the one with MultiDrop. Your favorite classic television show is being reimagined into your favorite casino game featuring iconic images from the show. Spin our new exclusive because we're not on a break. Play friends, the one with multi-drop, exclusively at BetMGM Casino. Want even more options? Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games from Blackjack to poker. Or head over to the arcade for nostalgic casino thrills. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling

or someone close to you, please contact Connex, Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Yeah, then Trump does continue referring to this as a hoax. So if there's evidence that the president of the United States at a time when he wasn't president, of course, back in 2009, was cooperating with the FBI, potentially serving as an FBI informant, what has happened that leads him to now refer to this very real issue as a hoax? Again, it's not a hoax. And one more thing about that. Think about it. If Donald Trump had voluntarily helped to get relief for those victims, is there any chance he wouldn't brag it? about it. Okay, there is no chance. Like he would definitely brag about it because it would make him look good. Yeah, it would make him look amazing. Right. The one guy who

helped that just volunteered out of nowhere and said to the FBI, you know what, I'm not sure about this guy. And maybe he did it for bad reasons. Oh, we had a property fight and he took some of my masseuses and from Mar-a-Lago, whatever. But it doesn't matter. If he did the right thing out of nowhere and volunteered, he would, he should get an enormous amount of credit. I've never known Donald Trump not to want to get the credit that he deserves. So that's why the alternate explanation of he's desperately trying to hide that he was an FBI informant is because of why he was an informant. My mind is like blown right now because there's more to the story, as you can imagine, right? So look, the DOJ is fighting very hard to cover certain things up that don't

need to be covered up. So I'll give you an example. There's an NBC News exclusive. You can read for yourselves, it's titled DOJ names of two associates Epstein wired $100,000 and $250,000 should stay secret. That's what the DOJ says, right? The Justice Department request came after NBC News asked a federal judge to unseal the names of two people. Epstein paid and helped protect from prosecution. So NBC News has requested that this federal judge essentially overseeing the Epstein case unsealed those two names. Who does? did Jeffrey Epstein send $100,000 to and $250,000 to back in 2018 as that case was being revisited? That sweetheart deal that he received in 2008 was being revisited. So the first

associate received a payment of $100,000 from Epstein and the second associate received a payment of $250,000, both in 2018. Days after the Miami Herald began publishing a series of investigative stories where victims criticized a plea deal he received in Florida in 2008. Now, as part of that plea agreement, Epstein secured a statement from federal prosecutors in Florida that the two individuals would not be prosecuted. Now, by the way, like gross. Why? Why would anyone agree to that? But prosecutors wrote that on November 30th, 2018, Epstein wired $100,000 from a trust account he controlled to an individual named as redacted, a potential co-conspirator, and for whom Epstein obtained protection in the NPA.

So prosecutors also wrote that this individual was also named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald series. There's more. Prosecutors added that the same records show that just three days later, on or about December 3rd, 2018, the defendant wired $250,000 from the same trust account to redacted, this is the second individual, who was also named as a potential co-conspirator, and for whom Epstein also obtained protection in the NPA. So clearly Epstein was attempting to influence possible witnesses or co-conspirators, Because like why else would you send such a large sum of money to these two different individuals? And last month, NBC News sent a letter asking the U.S. District Judge Richard Berman to unseal the

redacted names, arguing that, look, Epstein's dead, okay, criminal proceedings in this case have ended. The DOJ has made clear last summer in July that there would be no additional charges filed against uncharged third parties. So let us have the names. What's the problem with the names? And Trump's Justice Department is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the release of those two redacted names. Yeah, so when I first saw the story, I thought, maybe they were victims and he's doing hush money. But then once you read it, no, no, it's super clear. They're co-conspirators and they would have been charged along with him. So they're the guilty, right? And he gets the money and he says, please don't prosecute them. And for some ludicrous reason, our government agrees, okay? And remember at that point,

Epstein got the lightest sentence anybody's ever gotten, he can go in and out of jail. It was basically a hotel form. That was in 2008. 2008. So that's when he says, okay, don't prosecute these guys and sends them the money, okay? So but when NBC News is asking for it, Epstein's already dead, so he has no rights anymore. And the government has said there will be no further prosecutions. So NBC is rightly saying, and by the way, great job by NBC,

news here, saying, hey, then there's no reason legally to hold those names from the public. Right. So then the Department of Justice Jobs Senate goes, no, no, no, no, no, no. Don't tell anybody about those names. Now, if you were trying to protect the victims, that's super weird. If you're trying to protect the guilty, that makes sense. This is the 800th piece of evidence in a row that our government is trying to protect the guilty. Yeah, so individuals one and two, according to the DOJ, basically objected to the unsealing of their names and personal identifying information in the July 2019 letter. They're arguing, the DOJ is essentially arguing that the privacy of these alleged co-conspirators is more important than the public interest in revealing

the two possible co-conspirators to Jeffrey Epstein's predatory crimes. Look, this is ironically made me more sure that it's an intelligence agency issue. Why? Because if it turns out Trump is actually implicated, and that's why he became an informant, etc., well, then you could say, well, maybe it isn't an intelligence agency thing. It's just there were a lot of significant Democrats implicated, and obviously Trump being implicated, and that's why Democrats and Republicans won't release it. But then I think, really? I mean, if the Democrats knew that Trump is an FBI informant, which now it looks like there's a pretty healthy chance that that's true, right? And if you're in charge of the government, Biden was certainly, let alone Obama, et cetera. You know you have access to those files. And they didn't use that against Trump. They used everything else in the world, but they didn't use that. The one thing that could actually sink up, that means that is thermonuclear.

No one is allowed to touch that under any circumstance. That's why we haven't seen the files yet. Yeah. And by the way, one final thing I just want to mention before we forget, remember the Wall Street Journal had published that piece in regard to a birthday letter that Donald Trump had drawn for Jeffrey Epstein. Well, the Wall Street Journal has just published that image. It has the silhouette of, I guess, a woman, I don't know, with the exact text or wording that had been referred to in the Wall Street Journal piece. So there it is.

Yeah, that doesn't add much, honestly, because we already knew Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump We're terrific friends because both Trump and Epstein said it. It was for 15 years at a minimum. We know that they sent crude messages back and forth to one another, said crude things. The only question is whether Trump also did those things. There's alludes, you know, allusions to that in that, but with Epstein, everybody apparently knew. That's why almost everybody on the birthday cards like, ha ha, yeah, we know you like to sleep with a lot of women and black male people and you like girls as super young. And you're like, Jesus Christ, man.

Didn't it bother any of you? I think it's telling that Galane Maxwell ensured that like for Jeffrey Epstein's birthdays, all of these rich, powerful people who had connections to Epstein, like put their, you know, happy birthdays in writing and that these books were kept. Guys, I'll tell you what the rebuttable presumption is. I can't tell you that I know for a fact things that are in the, you know, in the vaults of our government, if not already destroyed, right? But you can get to logical conclusions that are way more likely than the opposite, okay?

So you're telling me that there's video cameras in the rooms recording the massages. So there is absolutely no reason to put cameras in there other than blackmail. So then the question is, is it an intelligence agency doing the blackmail and a sophisticated operation targeting the most powerful people in the world? Or two randos, just two, just Epstein and Maxwell. One of the randos happens to be the daughter of the biggest Mossad agent in Israel's history. The one that stole America's nuclear secrets and did like eight other things and got a huge state funeral in Israel because he's a legendary Mossad agent.

Robert Maxwell. So it's two random people that are not in the part of intelligence agencies. And one of those random people happens to be the daughter of a legendary spy from any country. on. Yeah. I mean, I'll tell you what's more likely and what's less likely, if you haven't pieced it together, it is very, very likely to be an intelligence agency, very likely from a certain country. And so they cover it up because we cover up everything for that country. Yeah. All right, well, we got to take a break. When we come back, Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green joins us to tell us what she is planning to do in response to this, in my opinion, very clear Jeffrey Epstein Files cover up. Can't wait for that conversation. Stick around. We'll be right back. Georgia's 14th congressional district, Representative Green, welcome back to the show.

Thank you. Thanks for having me on tonight. No problem. I understand you have big news for us. There is something you are considering introducing tomorrow. What is that? Well, actually, I've already introduced them. This week here in Congress, we're doing the National Defense Authorization Act, which is our annual funding for military. And our military budget should be very focused on our country, on our military, and strictly for defense purposes. However, once again, there is funding for foreign countries, foreign causes, foreign aid, and foreign defense of foreign nations. And so I've introduced multiple amendments to strip that funding out, specifically to defund $600 million for, Ukraine. So I've got one amendment to do that. And then I have a second amendment to take out any funding because I found out that one of my colleagues is trying to add more money in

for Ukraine. I have two amendments that strip funding from Israel. This would be 500 million. Israel already receives $3.8 billion annually from the United States government. I'm a big believer in defunding all foreign aid and all foreign funding for all foreign countries. So I've introduced two amendments, one to get the 500 million out of the NDAA. The 3.8 billion goes in the state and foreign ops approbes bill, so that's separately. And I had done amendments for that. And then I have another amendment that takes out another $105 million. This one is $55 million for Israel's counter drone program and another $70 million for anti-tunnel

cooperation. So it's just important. We're $37 trillion in debt. We shouldn't be funding foreign countries, basically because America's broke, and we really need to get focused on our own country and our own people's problems. Okay, so I want to take it one by one. I want to get clarity on all this, and then we'll get into the content and substance of it. So first off, the 500 million that you introduced an amendment to take it out of the

NDAA, is that the one that recently passed overwhelmingly in the House? Yes, that's the one that overwhelmingly passed. It was before Congress went on recess, and only six members of Congress voted for it, yes. And so that the claim is for defensive purposes, whatever that means, and about 60 million of it or so, I'm sorry, million of it, goes to around 66 maybe to Iron Dome and the rest is for, I don't know if you know, big defensive purposes. Well, just to clarify, just to clarify for your listeners, the US already provides nuclear armed Israel with 3.8 billion annually in foreign aid.

In 2024 in the Security Supplemental, we gave 8.7 billion to Israel. During the recent 12-day war with Iran and June, the U.S. used 15 to 20 percent of our terminal high altitude area defense missile stockpile defending Israel. That costs the United States somewhere over $800 million. Wow. The $500 million that I'm introducing an amendment to take out is authorized in the NDAA for this program that funds Israel's missile defense systems, Iron Dome, David's Sling, and the Aerosystem. But it's important to note that since 2006, we've spent over 15 billion supporting these Israeli missile defense systems.

Here's what is something important to understand. While we're 37 trillion in debt, Israel is less than 400 billion in debt. And they're doing so well with their economy, they're able to provide state-funded health care for Israeli citizens, they're able to provide state-funded college. My argument is it's not anti-Semitic to say that America should keep our money and invest our own hard-earned tax dollars in our own interest, especially for a country like Israel that is nuclear armed and that is doing so well economically, they're able to provide state-funded health care in college.

I don't think that's a country that needs our assistance, especially how they've shown the entire world that they're very capable of annihilating and wiping out their enemies. So that's really my argument there with Israel. And primarily my argument is we've got so many problems here at home. I really want to see the United States Congress focus on the American people. So one more quick point of clarification, and the second amendment is to take out the entire 3.8 billion in funding? Well, the 3.8 billion is not in the NDAA. That's in a separate appropriations bill. So I wasn't able to do that one here. Right. Oh, so you couldn't do that

here. So the two amendments are for the 500 million and the 125 million. And just to be clear, the 3.8 billion that we provide Israel every single year is part of legislation that passed under the Obama administration, a 10-year program, which is set to expire in 2026. So that fight is coming up because I'm sure Israel is going to expect our Congress to re-up and potentially increase the amount of money they can expect from American taxpayers on a yearly basis. So, you know, I think what you're doing here is so important, Congresswoman Green, so please thank you, because I know that you now have a target on your back and I'm sure you're being called all sorts of ridiculous names because you want to,

you know, prioritize the American people and, you know, do something about our debt. What's really interesting, though, is when it comes to the military aid that's provided to Ukraine, you know, President Donald Trump has very subtly, but I actually think this is a smart idea, has very subtly kind of started to shift the financial burden a little more over to Europe. So the American taxpayer isn't as responsible for essentially helping Ukraine in their defense. In the case of Israel, though, what's really interesting is on top of that 3.8 billion that they receive every single year, you know, you have presidents, and Biden certainly did this literally over a hundred times during his administration. He just went like he bypassed Congress

altogether to provide Israel with tens of billions of dollars in additional military support. and military funding, and Trump has done similar things during the short stint he's had in his second term. And I want to kind of understand what have you as a congresswoman experience kind of like behind the scenes? Like what is it about Israel in particular that gets our lawmakers to just be unwavering in their support and their willingness to shell out endless amounts of money to that country? I think that's a great question. And it's really difficult to understand. So I don't go on the A-PAC trips. I've never been on them. I don't receive their funding. And I have a sign on my office door literally that reminds people, if you're coming in my office, it reminds them if you're coming in for a foreign country, you've got to be registered under FARA. And I think that's extremely important. I don't understand it, Anna, because I serve in the United States. States House of Representatives. And I believe my job title as a representative is for my district, which is the American people. And as a whole, the body of Congress, we represent the American

people in our country, in our government, and our causes. And we're supposed to work towards solving our problems. However, there is no country all over the world that gets the attention, the funding, the dedication, the amount of votes, legislation, resolutions other than Israel. As a matter of fact, we've voted, I think it's over 21 or 21 to 23 resolutions, denouncing anti-Semitism, denouncing anything happening towards Jewish people since I've been a member of Congress, January of 2021, and I've never seen resolutions for any other cause like that. in that number. As well as when it comes to Israel, you know, we have we have hate crimes, which is incredibly important. We need hate crimes. People of all backgrounds, races, no matter

what their identity is, they should be protected. However, in our NDAA, there's a portion there where they're introducing more penalties for anti-Semitism when it comes to college campuses. and protesting. I'm completely against that. So I'm not sure how to answer your question of why. Part of it is, is there's Christians in America that really believe that verse in Genesis bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. And they believe that applies today to the secular government of Israel.

I personally don't believe that. And I'm a Christian. And I believe that's basically a pretty big stumbling stone. If you're a Christian, you truly believe that Jesus died on a cross and rose three days, three days later and ascended into heaven. And we have very deep convictions on what that meant. That meant that he died for all of our sins to be forgiven. We don't believe in that verse in Genesis, meaning that that covers up everything that Jesus did.

But I think that that holds a lot of power over many of my colleagues and a certain person. of Americans today, but I think the separation of understanding that being against what the secular government, nuclear armed government of Israel is doing, it doesn't make you an anti-Semitic person, it doesn't make you against Jewish people. It just means that, and for me, it means that I believe our problems are so big in America and our debt is so massive that I'm sorry to the rest of the world, no offense to anyone, but I think we just really got to focus at home. I don't think I'm mistaken in noticing a change in you, to be quite frank, and it's a change that I personally like.

There's a certain seriousness and maturity in the way that you deliver what your objectives are and how you genuinely want to serve what's in the best interests of your constituents and the people of this country. Do you feel that the way that this genocide in Gaza has developed has kind of given you a different perspective on geopolitics? Well, I think there's two parts of that question. And I appreciate your observation. In the beginning, the media was pretty rough on me.

Right. So it was hard for a lot of people to really understand who I am as a person. And when I ran for Congress in 2020, what a lot of people may not know is I actually ran criticizing the Republican Party. I had a lot of criticism of Republicans. And I said that many times on my campaign trail. So my district knows it full well. That is no surprise to them.

I think the Republican Party fails in many ways. And I'm open about that. Now, when it comes to what's happening in Gaza, there's videos and pictures of what's happening to children that you just can't unsee. And anyone that has a heart and compassion for, children and innocent people. I don't know how anyone can turn a blind eye to that. But I've also stated that October 7th was horrific, and I stand by those statements. I think both things are really

bad. And then I talked to Christian pastors in Gaza, and they told me that the starvation of children is real. This is not war propaganda. This is not made up. And so it was taking some investigation. And talking to people and looking deeply into actual evidence I'm seeing with videos and pictures. And, you know, I'm, I just can't unsee it. I think it's terrible. And that war, it really, truly needs to end. There's a certain, you know. There's a certain authenticity in the way you're reacting to it that I really value.

Because you look at so many politicians and even in the face of mass atrocities, they're just right. They're just robots and so I really appreciate the fact that you've been speaking out against what's happening in Gaza. I'm sure that it has attracted all sorts of terrible attention toward you, but please keep doing what you're doing because it's necessary. And I think that what's currently happening because we're paying for it, we're aiding and abetting it. It's a stain on our country and it's unfortunate. Yeah, so I just want to follow up on that real quick. So Representative Green, you know, your reaction that Anna just described, a human reaction to seeing children, you know, being killed right in front of our eyes. And not a little bit, like tens of thousands of children, right, is a normal human reaction.

But yet it is not the reaction that an overwhelming majority of your colleagues are feeling, apparently. So that, what did you guys get? Six votes last time for similar legislation, right? And so now the media tells us that when you look at why, it's because Israel is apparently some special magical place and that we owe them. I don't know why we owe them, but we're told all the time we owe them, right? And so I don't know that America ever did anything wrong to Israel. All America's ever done is support Israel over and over and over and over again.

And even in the middle of a genocide, but still apparently we owe them. And it's offensive to suggest that we don't owe them. them. But yet again, the overwhelming majority of her colleagues say, no, no, we do owe Israel, and you are not allowed to criticize. You're not allowed to question their money. And so you've gotten attacked and Rokana's gotten attacked, Tom Massey, et cetera. So real quick, I want to run down the possibilities. Media says money has nothing to do with it. Though a lot of Americans think money has a lot to do with it. The APAC is given to 65% of Congress. The different PAC supporting Israel have given a 90% of the members of Congress. So do you believe money is a factor in your

colleagues votes on this issue? I completely believe money is a factor. I watch it every single day here in Congress. The people that I work with who they're funded by affects their votes. Many of the doctors caucus during COVID, the doctors, many of them I served with on the COVID committee. They're very, very funded by Big Pharma. And they wouldn't talk about the COVID vaccines. And that was so disturbing to me. I think that's a very important topic and investigation that needs to happen. And I'm pursuing it right now as we speak. Many of the members that I serve with that are highly funded by the military industrial complex, they're going to make sure that those government contracts and all of that gets funded. They believe in a,

a war economy. And they will flat out tell us that you have, they'll say, Marjorie, you have thousands of jobs in your district that rely on these government contracts. Well, you want to know something? I'm not very interested in funding an economy that's based on killing people, especially innocent people and children. I love it. And, but yes, I do believe that APAC funding is, is very serious. I believe APAC needs to register under Farah. I've openly demanded that and if we had a Department of Justice that was doing its job, they would be investigating APEC because I don't know of any other foreign country that literally takes our members of Congress on a trip to their own country, takes along with them influencers from all different

backgrounds, news people, and spends a lot of money, all expenses paid with their, everybody from the prime minister to different members of the government and taking them on all types of sightseeing, religious places, places of worship, dinners, and all types of excursions. I don't know any other country that does that other than Israel. And I do think that it's powerful. It has an impact. And my position is I don't hate Israel. I don't hate the people there.

Oh, my goodness, I wish them all well. I wish people all over the world well. But my position is we are in trouble at home. We're in big trouble and our debt is serious. And the fact that my children's generation who are in their 20s, everyone they know can't afford rent, their credit cards are maxed out. The cost of living is too expensive and insurance is a scam. And our health care industry is a disaster. And this is all going to lead to somewhere.

And I'm just unapologetically fed up with it all. Okay, so I know you've got to run to votes. I'd love to talk more about Ukraine, more about other issues. But one last question about this. How much of a factor do you think it is that members of Congress know that if they oppose Israeli funding, that mainstream media will come down on them like a ton of bricks? That they'll be, that they'll be accused of being anti-Semites, their, that their career will be threatened, et cetera. Oh, yeah, big time. It's ridiculous. So you've got everybody from Mark Levine to Ben Shapiro to Laura Lumer. You've got the, you know, the establishment media will call you an anti-Semite newspapers. You'll get phone calls from all kinds of people, you know, asking, what's the matter with you? Yeah, the pressure, the pressure is real. But I think the American people see through it. And

the tide is rapidly changing. And I tell you, one of the most delightful experiences I've had since I've been in Washington and it reminds me of my years before I ever became a member of Congress is that I'm finding common ground with people on the left and the right that really want to focus in on America. And I think that's the best thing that can happen. And that's why I'm delighted to have conversations with the two of you. And I look forward to finding more common ground because I think that can be the best thing that could happen for all of us. 100%. We still have so many things we disagree on. But But more and more these days, it's becoming less about left versus right than it is about the American people versus the elites and the establishment.

Absolutely. Because they do not serve our interest at all. And everyone is tired of it. So Representative Marjorie Taylor Green from Georgia, we appreciate you coming on the Young Turks. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Yep. All right, guys, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, there are more interesting developments from the right.

Now Tucker's got a documentary on 9-11, he got interviewed about it. That's super interesting and a lot more developments about JP Morgan covering up for Jeffrey Epstein. That's super interesting as well, so stay right here, we'll be right back. Back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. Also ready for next chapter. They joined on TYT.com slash join, so they're awesome. And we appreciate you so much. And on YouTube, David Baldassarro joined, we appreciate you.

They hit that big, beautiful join button. Great last thing. Yeah, that is a badass nice. It's also a baldassarro. Okay. Let's drop it. All right, good old Goldie also joined and so did Zeldrian. And they wrote in, I became a member, I just became a member, but I've been watching since October 7th happen.

Soon enough, there'll be three generations of my family watching you guys, love you guys, you are punk rock. Oh, I like that. I appreciate that a lot. So look, when I said that Marjorie Taylor Green was going to come on the show today, some of social media said, oh, why don't you have Democratic representatives? We'd be happy to. Yeah, we invite them all the time, guys. We had Representative Adelao Ramirez on recently. That was great.

Check that out on YouTube. Rokana obviously comes on all the time. And you'll see Greg Gassar and some others do it. But if you're seeing someone not on here, it's probably because they said no. And that is weird and curious when Marjorie Taylor Green and others are saying yes. Yeah, we reach out to members of Congress all the time. Obviously, Democratic members of Congress. So, yeah, anyway.

But I really appreciated that interview. And guys, you know, I've gotten a little taste of what happens to you in your personal life when you're willing to speak out against, you know, the unwavering support for Israel. And so I have a tremendous amount of respect for any member of Congress who is speaking out. The way Marjorie Taylor Green is speaking out, whether they're Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. It's a difficult thing to do. You attract a lot of hatred, a lot of threats. So to see her doing it anyway shows a level of

strength that we need in members of Congress. All right, now, let's move on to something entirely different because there's an interesting docu-series coming out from Tucker Carlson's network. The official story on 9-11 is a complete lie. The 9-11 report is a joke. You have the CIA following two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America, right? And you don't tell the FBI. 9-11 commission, the cover. So what did happen? What did the government know? What did foreign governments know? There was a cover-up. Why? It's been nearly 25 years in his time Americans learned what actually happened. We're going to tell you. We're releasing one episode per week. You're not going to wait. If you remember, you don't have to. You get all five episodes the day it drops. Right then, ad-free. Our first episode airs Thursday, 9-11, September 11th. You will not want to miss it. Join us now at Tucker Carlson.com. All right, well, that trailer and this docu-series that's coming up on the Tucker Carlson Network is getting a lot of attention, so much so that Pierce Morgan interviewed him today. Just to ask some questions and to challenge what many believe are simply crazy conspiracy theories among conspiracy theorists in regard to what took place on 9-11.

I don't know what I personally believe. Obviously this hasn't been published yet, but I thought that this conversation, This exchange between Pierce Morgan and Tucker Carlson was fascinating. And we're going to just give you a few highlights. Please watch the entire conversation for yourselves. But before I get into it, Jank, any initial thoughts? Well, before I never entertained the idea that at 9-11 was anything but what the government said. And so I was like, what did they make the planes disappear? They get willing to kill everybody on the planes.

It all sounds absurd. So I now think that I have seen the government do so many terrible things repeatedly and cover off for it repeatedly that I am no longer sure. And when you see things like World Trade Center, World Trade Center 7, a building across the street, apparently was so hot that the steel inside the building melted from across the street. But the government found Mohamed Atta's paper passport conveniently on top of the rubble. Yeah, there's- Things that don't make any sense. Yeah. So I'm not saying I know the answer, but I'm beginning to come to some conclusions about what is not the answer. Yeah, and that's where I'm at as well, right?

I'm not running around saying 9-11 was an inside job. I'm not, I don't know, but I do know that there are some serious issues with what the, you know, accepted narrative is. And in fact, they're about to get into an exchange in regard to building seven. So let's go to the first clip. Huge parts of the 9-11 story were left out of the commission report. For example, what happened to building seven, which was not only not next to the Twin Towers, which are hit by airplanes, but had a building in between itself and those buildings, collapsed that afternoon for reasons that no one has been able to explain since.

You're not a lunatic for asking. There is no real, there's no plausible explanation for how that building collapsed. So that's the issue at play here that I wanted to give you that portion of what Tucker Carlson had to say. And Pierce Morgan attempts to explain it to some extent by providing what he feels is a similar example of another building. Like just melting away similarly to building seven. Before we go to that clip, Anna, I just want to say this story broke today. I didn't know that that was going to be the first topic. And for all the times that I had this conversation with Ben and a million other people,

I would always say, look guys, I get everything and I'm not a physicist. I don't know how the plane could hit or couldn't hit or could crash or couldn't crash. I got no expertise on that. Just that building that is not anywhere near the other buildings just melting down. I've never thought that made any sense. And what we should expect from our government is logical answers. Not like, whatever, shut up. You're a conspiracy theorist and you should never get any real answers.

So I am, the reason I interrupt you is because I'm super curious what Pierce Morgan is going to say. Because I've literally never heard a proper explanation for it, even when I believe 9-11, 100%. Well, let's go to Pierce Morgan. Let's see what he had to say. If you look into the investigation into Tower 7, the findings of the investigation into it were that the North Tower, when it came down, had set off a load of fires in Building 7. And it was a steel structure and shouldn't have gone down, but it did. These fires burned all afternoon.

And I think it was about 5 o'clock in the afternoon or something. The tower eventually gave way to the welter of fires raging inside it. And it was the only time that had happened to a structure that was built in that way. However, there has been another tower very similar to that in structure, which has since gone down in Tehran. So it's no longer the only one. In other words, there is another example of a tower like that collapsing. Okay, so you can see Tucker Carlson smiling in response to what Pierce Morgan is saying,

probably because, okay, well, if you want to make that argument, that the fire was so hot that it led to the collapse of building seven, well, what happened to the building in between, right? And nothing happened to that building. And so I want to give Tucker an opportunity to respond to that, and then we can discuss. What is the alternative explanation? I mean, if you're examining another theory other than the one that the investigation concluded was simply that the North Tower came down, fires were set off in Tower 7,

and then it eventually collapsed. What is the other theory which we should give more credence to? I don't know, I don't know that the onus is on me or anyone who seeks the truth about what happened to come up with an alternative theory. The onus is on federal authorities to explain why, for, example, they never investigated it. Why, for example, the rubble and the steel from that building was carted off within hours and sent out of the country to Asia. Why, for example, an analysis done not by Cooke's, but by chemists found traces of explosive material in the dust from that

day. Why structural engineers who have kind of no skin in this game came to the conclusion that that just couldn't happen based on all available evidence. And that none of that is addressed at all or even mentioned in the 9-11 report. So, and there are all kinds of anomalies, as I know that you're fully aware, and there are possible explanations to explain all of them, for example, the BBC report on air saying the building had fallen when it hadn't fallen yet. He's right about that BBC report and Pierce later says that the BBC report was based on an erroneous report by Reuters.

Okay, okay, that doesn't explain anything. It doesn't. know the building was going to collapse before it got hit. Exactly, yeah. So look, I don't know those details. We don't know, and like I, I'm very interested to watch this docu-series and the claims that it makes. I was super young when 9-11 happened, I was in high school, and the thought of, you

know, this being a big conspiracy was ridiculous to me. It didn't even cross my mind, I was a child, okay? But revisiting this now, I do have a lot of questions. Yeah, no, it's over. Look, this is, we're at a seminal moment in American politics and media. Before there was a whole bucket of things you could not question. The minute you question them, what would happen? What would that mean you can't question them?

You say anything you want in a backyard barbecue, right? But if you work in politics or media in any way, shape, or form, if you question them, you would immediately be fired. You would be labeled a kook or conspiracy theories and probably some sort of character assassination on top attached to it, anti-semit, a racist, or this, or that, whatever it is, but you're dispatched, you're not allowed on air, right? Now, because of digital media, they can't contain it. And now everybody's asking questions. And they're like, fire Tim Dillon. Damn it, we can't fire Tim Dillon. Okay, they fire Joe Rogen. God damn it, we can't fire Joe

Rogan. So now people are starting to ask and ask and ask. And so what I'm telling you now about this seminal moment is we've crossed a Rubicon. You can ask any goddamn thing you like. Right, okay? And if they try to fire you for it, they're the bad guys, not you. And asking the question doesn't mean that you already think that it's a conspiracy. You're just trying to prove that it's a conspiracy. The questions about Building 7 are legitimate questions, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, look, I'm, I'm willing to get convinced on anything, but building seven is a mystery that is nearly impossible. Like the idea that the towers would collapse themselves, north and south, after they got hit, that the steel could burn

so much that they could collapse is a very controversial idea within engineering circles, right? But a building across the street with other buildings in between. No, it's a steel didn't burn down. No way. That is not the correct answer. So the same thing with J.M. So if you, for when I was growing up, if you ever said anything about JFK, you were told to shut up and you'd get fired, et cetera. Now, I don't know who killed JFK because I don't have the secret files in front of me. I don't know what happened on 9-11, but it's not my job to know, it's my job to ask questions, right? And it's the job of the government to tell us the correct answers. So what I'm telling you now is on JFK, I'm absolutely positive.

The government's story is not the correct answer. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot him from three states away and hit everything else in between and is the greatest shot of all time, even though he had nothing to do with JFK. There's tons and tons of people who despised JFK and wanted him killed. They said on the record they wanted him killed. So I don't know which one of them did it. I do know that it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald acting by himself. And if you want to do the old games and say, well, the government said it.

So you're a conspiracy theorist. You can do that all day long guys, but it doesn't matter because you lost. Because now you look ridiculous. So now when you turn back to 9-11, no, I don't know the answer, guys. I don't know who did it, why they did it, or maybe it did happen just like October 7th, where it's not that Israel did it, but there was a weird stand-down order. Why was there a stand-down order? And that's not me saying that's IDF soldiers saying there was a stand-down order,

right at that exact time when we never have a stand-down order. So that's not me saying, Israel did it, that's me saying that's weird. That is weird, and we need an answer to that. Yeah, and you need a plausible answer to that, not trust me, bro, which is what the government's been doing the entire time. And so, and then one more quick thing on Pierce's answer. So now we're told that conveniently there was a building that melted down in a similar way in Tehran. Wait, does Iran acknowledge that? Or is that some intelligence we got from a trusted ally and just trust us, bro, that building went down just like World Trade Center 7 did?

Yeah, maybe and maybe not. Should we play a few more clips? Yeah. Okay, so the topic then switched to whether anyone may have known that this terror attack was going to happen, but withheld that information or that intel from the American people and the American government anyway. Let's get to that clip. Is it cock up, or do you think there is merit to suggestion that some people somewhere must have known more than we've been? been told? Well, we know that people did know more than we've been told. I mean, somebody shorted the airlines and a bunch of the banks that were affected. Now, this is not a conspiracy

theory. It's not a guess. This is publicly available information. Now, the FBI found out the identity of the person or institution that shorted these events on 9-11 and made a huge amount of money by doing that, but never released that information. So why can't we know, who clearly had foreknowledge. I mean, if you're shorting American Airlines a week before 9-11, when no one knows it's coming, I think you should have to explain why you did that. And if you're shorting Barclays and banks that were affected by 9-11, why can't we know who you are?

These are public markets, by the way. This is not private equity. This is publicly traded equities. That's fascinating. I mean, there could be an explanation for why that individual decided to short American airlines. It could have been a crazy coincidence. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So look, again, the question, the problem is the answer is the problem is that we weren't allowed to ask before. Right. Right. So for example, is it possible that somebody had a different hunch based on a completely

different thing and they short an American and they got quote unquote lucky, right, in that sense. Now you could say that with rolling your eyes, oh yeah, what a coincidence. But it might be, it might be, right? It depends on the scale of it. It depends on who it is. Is it Randobobam from Nebraska? Well, how to hell would he know, right? But if it's somebody from the intelligence community, wait, that's a different thing, right? If it's a senator, that's a different thing, right? So can, why aren't the American people allowed to know? I mean, you don't even have to give me the brother's name, whether it was the guy who shorted Barclays or the company that did or American or whatever, just like, can we find out what category they were in? Were they

a farmer? Were they a banker? What were they? Right? But for everything, they always tell you the same thing, shut up, otherwise we'll ruin you, you will assassinate your character and say you're a conspiracy theorist and you'll never work again. Yeah, that reaction makes me think, wait, maybe this is worse than I thought. Yeah, because why have, what a weirdo reaction for the most normal questions about one of the most important events in American history. It is one of the most important and most tragic events in American history. It was the largest terror attack on U.S. soil, okay, thousands of people died and it

served as the catalyst for changing this country forever and not for the best, I would argue, okay? Violations of Americans' privacies, mass surveillance, you know, the Patriot Act, obviously, foreign wars, it just goes on- Global war on terrorism. That costs us $8 trillion. Yes. Happened to take out other people's enemies, not our enemies. Anyways, but one other thing, the bin Luns. So why did we fly out the bin Lunds? No one's ever answered that. That's a great question. So that was a question from the left. That was Michael Moore asking that question.

What a weird, weird reaction? You're telling me Osama bin Laden did it, and your first reaction was to gather up all the bin Laden's that apparently lived inside America and fly them out first class of Saudi Arabia. Why? And I'm not allowed to ask why? No, that's crazy talk. Guys, this isn't about right or left. This is about our government doesn't represent us, and they keep telling us funny stories

that don't make any sense. The minute you ask one question, they try to take your head off. Yeah. So you got one more? One more clip. Let's take a look. So clearly, yes, there was foreknowledge. By the way, there was a team, this is according to the FBI, by the way. This is the FBI saying there was a team of clearly intel connected foreigners who were arrested after 9-11, as you well know, videotaping the terror attacks. This is, I'm almost verbatim quoting from the FBI assessment of this. And the FBI determined that they apparently had four knowledge of the attacks. So why can't we know more about that exactly? Shut up. That's bigoted. No, this is my country. So I don't know if he's referring to the five Israelis who a witness had seen taking photos, not recording, but taking photos of the World Trade Center as it was being attacked. One of them was holding a lighter up to the World Trade Center prior to the attack. And I don't

I don't know if that's what he's referring to, but those five individuals were kept in U.S. custody for over two months. The FBI absolutely did believe that at least two of them had connections to Mossad, right? The Israeli intelligence organization. And I read the FBI files on this. And the investigation just like abruptly kind of ended after a little over two months, John Ashcroft specifically, the Attorney General at the time, called for them to be released and sent back to Israel. And then a few years after that, he served as a consultant who consulted on behalf of Israel. I mean, it's absurd.

So guys, look, on that one, again, that's the one that people get most touchy about because they assume all sorts of things in your head that aren't in your head. They're like, oh, that must mean that you hate Israel and you hate Jews and you hate this. No, no, hold on guys, we're not talking about any of that. We're saying, why did they go to document that event? And that's not my words, that's their words. One of them was on Israeli TV afterwards when he was shipped back to Israel and they said, why did you go? And he slipped up, I assume he slipped up, he said, we went to document the event, which makes you ask, how did you know there was going to be an event?

So now you're not supposed to ask that question, otherwise you're going to get called all sorts of names. And by the way, there could even be, there could even be a legitimate explanation for that, right? Maybe they happened to be in New York City at the time doing other spy operations. The claim was that, you know, or the FBI also believed that there were Israeli nationals or members or agents of Mossad here in the United States spying on Arabs. Okay, that's what they say. Maybe they just happen to be in New York City. Is that okay, by the way? I don't think that's okay, especially if our government and our intelligence organizations

don't know about it. But okay, putting that aside for a second, maybe they saw that there was an attack and they went to this specific area to take more images and whatever of the world trades. I don't know, I don't know what the explanation is. But the point is, these questions are okay to ask, especially when the moving company that that these five Israelis were working for ended up being a total front. And the owner of that moving company immediately like scrambled to get back to Israel once the five individuals had been arrested.

And by the way, in the moving truck, they found foreign passports, $4,700 in cash. All sorts of like weird, shady things that make you wonder, make you ask these appropriate questions. Remember, the five got arrested after a witness saw them taking the photos of the World Trade Center and also, like, in her words, like celebrating, they looked happy. Yeah, all right. So guys, last thing on this, again, it doesn't mean that Israel did, for example. It could be that they knew about it, like on October 7th, but chose not to say anything. It could be that they said something, but we didn't listen to them. Okay, that could also be the case. Right. Remember, there was the famous CIA warning to Bush when he was on his Crawford Ranch.

They said bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States and Bush said you covered your ass, now go home and ignored it. Right. So there could be legitimate things, but what if you have a legitimate answer, telling everybody to shut up and calling them bigots is a weird response, right? And then final thought here. Now no one disputes that they were Israeli spies and that they were released back to Israel, right?

People do dispute it even till this day. Oh, I mean, of course, Israeli government is going to lie about everything. So I don't mean like illegitimate, ridiculous things like there is. is no genocide in Gaza, no one got hurt in Gaza. I mean, you could say absurd things, right? But like, we know there was Israeli spies, ABC News reported it, Fox News reported it at the time, etc. The FBI in its own reports as the Israeli spies, right? And then they send them back to Israel, just like we did with the bin Laden. Why are we, why would you catch spies of any nation, let alone after the worst attack against your country ever, and then let them go?

Why would you let them go that, like assuming that Israel had absolutely nothing to do with it and no foreknowledge, no nothing, because we don't know that. But you did catch these Israeli spies. They did say they're there to document the event. Maybe they did, they said that later. So, but it is weird. They were taking pictures of it. You thought to question them for two months. That's how freaked out you were by it.

And then all of a sudden, you don't just go, oh, okay, I get it was a miscommunication or whatever. You guys didn't do anything wrong. you then say, even though I know you're a spy for a foreign country and you were spying on us here in America, you're free to go. Why are they free to go? Forget 9-11. We caught spies here. Why are they free to go? Why were the bin Laden free to go? Why were the Israeli spies free to go? That is not an illegitimate question. It doesn't get any more legitimate than that question. And if you can't answer that, the problem isn't in the person asking the question. The problem isn't the person that won't give the answer to the American people.

Yeah, all right, well, we got to take a break when we come back. A stunning new expose by the New York Times in regard to JPMorgan Chase and the financial relationship it continued to have with Jeffrey Epstein, even as allegations started to come out and be public. That and more coming up, don't miss it. Thank you.