Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Michael Tracey Interviews Nick Fuentes on Trump and Israel
Interview
July 30, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Interview: Nick Fuentes

AD_4nXfkS9RU5ALFlbPsS3jOkhSSwpS7gqgRFtjGWNSbqQXr3PtvI4AX4ZTCxV4AB4WA0HAWFkPToDDjV-Zsy8eG40Bzv-kkvibYCjGOHqZl_5QgK_LSyzXwbMkgZzvp2_JHtKWA2wSm8rjZMpCPzfWXukLFrJ1ZFjTPoC-vZXJUdw?key=I_B_UUPf7wP4ZmyfUJdMLw

So, with that, I want to get to our first guest. He is Nick Fuentes. Nick Fuentes, I'm not even sure what his title is. But I'm glad that he joined us. I know he's involved in some America First endeavor. 

 

M. Tracey: So, Nick Fuentes, how are you, sir? 

 

Nick Fuentes: I'm good. How are you doing, Michael? 

 

M. Tracey:  I'm okay. So, this is going to be seen as edgy and controversial that we're interviewing you here tonight. But last night, we had Cenk Uygur, and we have people across the political spectrum, and I see nothing wrong. I see it as a positive to engage with lots of people, even those who I don't agree with. Isn’t that the purpose of having shows like this?

 

Nick Fuentes: Absolutely. 

 

M. Tracey:  So, we're in agreement on that. Good. And I also want to say that you guys, your group had some kind of function in Detroit not too long ago and ended up getting shut down through some developments that I don't fully understand but, either way, I think that, in the United States, political groups ought to be able to hold events largely without hindrance because that's pretty foundational to the free association clause of the First Amendment. So, I'm with you on that as well. 

I want to start out by establishing some common ground. But let's go to something that you said, May 31. Here is a tweet of yours that I want to ask you about. 

AD_4nXeKKFRqRHXXfAy-stVRP8anLsGKJt7HixCOz1Iin1qnBU3-fwtR72iL0Ze7npD6d_UhWMv26Ouhdgsgr0z7Y4NNf8A7-BA7_dFDnOazGAFXpoPoGIu-fjKJNgMvGD_Fk9Yyb60AmyUrYapKEbUOljBlVkzHkIAxH7r-y81S-w?key=I_B_UUPf7wP4ZmyfUJdMLw

You say you love Donald Trump but you don't trust the people he has surrounded himself with, such as Tim Scott and you referred to Lindsey Graham and Rick Grinnell in some unflattering terms. You also don't like Nikki Haley and the former Never-Trumper J.D. Vance in his administration? Well, J.D. Vance is now the vice presidential nominee. So, your, ominous omen came true there. But I just want to ask you, why do you love Donald Trump so much? I mean, why do you preface any criticism of Donald Trump with a proclamation that you love him? I mean, why love a politician at all? Donald Trump is a three-time presidential candidate, arguably even a five-time presidential candidate if you count his toying with running for the Republican nomination in 2012. Then, in 2000, he ran on as a Reform Party primary candidate against Pat Buchanan. So, he's now a career politician, essentially. I don't know, I'm not inclined to declare my undying love for any politician. So, I'm just curious why it is that you tend to precede any critique you might have of Trump with this reaffirmation of your love for him. 

 

Nick Fuentes: Well, I think you have to consider that Trump is a pretty unique figure in American politics. I actually probably tend to agree more with you lately. I know we had a pretty strong disagreement on Twitter earlier this year, but I'm certainly closer to your camp at this point. But I would say that I always preface any criticism of Trump, I mean, first of all, it's a political reality that he is the most popular Republican in the United States, so, I think just from a purely tactical point of view, for somebody like myself, I don't necessarily want to alienate myself as a right-wing commentator from most of the Trump supporters. That is a big part of it, let's just be honest. But more than that, Donald Trump is who initially inspired me to actually become an America First nationalist or America First patriot. My show – you said that you don't know what my title is – I host a show on Rumble called America First, and I got the name from when he used that expression in his campaign and his inaugural address. He said “A new vision will govern our land. It will be only America first.” This is where I think there's a little bit more complexity, maybe, than some people are willing to admit, where before Donald Trump came into the party, conservatives said that America First was a KKK slogan because of the historical roots, of course, of that phrase with Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford and others, they said it's an antisemitic slogan to even say that. And I think that when you look at it over time, what Trump has done as president and what he promises to do in a future term, you're absolutely right. And I've said as much on my show. There's a major contradiction. His first term did not live up to that standard. His policies now don't live up to that standard. But if it weren't for that initial campaign, in 2016, this contradiction would not be forced. And so, now, America First has been set as the standard and that was not the case before he came into office. Before, during and now even after his presidency, you see that the Republican consensus, the status quo is Neoconservatism. And you see people like DeSantis and Haley, you can even draw a distinction between what they say versus what he says. And you're right. It's not 100% America First, I have my criticisms also, but it's not the kind of insane rhetoric from people like Haley that say when it comes to Israel, we just need to say, “What do they want?” and “When do they want it?” and no questions asked. Biden has effectively done that. Also, Trump would probably be doing that as well. But certainly, it's a different standard being applied. And so, I think there's like a dialectical argument to be made that, again, even if the practical application was not lived up to it all, it has given a lot of young people – and I think a new generation of Republicans – the kind of ideological tools or dialectical tools to say “Are we living up even to America first?” So, I think that that was a really important thing that happened regardless. 

 

M. Tracey: Okay, so I want to go to an image. This is Sheldon and Miriam Adelson in February 2020. 

AD_4nXeO2VtU94IY4AF_at2R9yjvV6U7LbPzmJso2hKFZmgUzqqIKDS8Jad_-NvxsgocFBUlJQX3VrMjyFDRYS8p_BhcinhwG7tOWl-TGuP7_fmOsFz20GPkUHoV8TtuYBuRpcV4aq5Az5HYbZqUR5-2wZMwbqhRLrYgtg36Shd5DA?key=I_B_UUPf7wP4ZmyfUJdMLw

There's Sheldon Adelson, the late casino magnate, and his wife, who has now inherited his fortune and his political project. This is in 2020. Okay, so in 2016, Adelson funded Trump to the tune of approximately $25 million, giving to a super PAC in the 2018 midterms. Adelson, whose singular issue is pro-Israel, okay, he cares about nothing else, at least in terms of his political giving. Even when he was divorced as a younger man, he told his associates that he wanted them to find him an Israeli woman for him to remarry. And they found him one. And he's even now buried in the Mount of Olives in East Jerusalem. So, that's Sheldon Adelson’s political project. Okay? He gave to Trump, in 2016, he gave to the Republicans, in 2018, in the midterms, one of the top funders of the entire Republican Party and of the Trump coordination with congressional Republicans. And then, in 2020, he again became one of Trump's chief funders. I raise that because after the 2020 election, you led something called the “Stop the Steal” movement. Or at least you were a galvanizer or rallier for the “Stop the Steal” movement because you were just so desperate to keep Trump in power after 2020. 

AD_4nXeL6c71SdcuvrbjJyA2bB1C9f-vvxBJ8ChATJgOs25Y0bNlWngmHyO6-NT6h34hWACSE8O3AVsidirQedeaK2hEludhUuxCRO3l-TwFFdhmbBJ5V-AhCCNw9NRrkA3PjdSlo3tTxIGFbmbwt3-VrWF5QTrOmjqIJBOThcr87A?key=I_B_UUPf7wP4ZmyfUJdMLw

There's you and Ali Akbar, also known as Ali Alexander, who were some of the main organizers of that effort. And this is after Trump took all these millions from the chief funders of the cause that you now say you object to, which is orienting U.S. foreign policy inextricably with Israel. And, Trump even says that he did this at the behest of Adelson. Trump was addressing a Republican Jewish Coalition gathering last November. You said his rhetoric is different from DeSantis and Haley's, I mean, not really, Trump said at this Republican Jewish Coalition donor gala, he pointed to Miriam Adelson and said, “Your husband was so great. We moved the embassy to Jerusalem because he really wanted it.” 

So, I guess my question to you is, I understand that you have these criticisms of Trump now, but all this was evident while Trump was actually in power and yet you were putting your, I guess, reputation on the line. Via this Stop the Steal. I think it was kind of a sham. No offense. Where did all that money go that was given to Stop the Steal? I mean, Trump fundraised out the wazoo for “Stop the Steal.” Desperate Republican voters were filling his coffers with money on the idea that he could, like, switch the delegate slate in Georgia or something. And I don't know, I guess. Are you having an epiphany now that you now repudiate what you were doing in 2020 to keep Trump in power? Or do you see the contradiction that I'm trying to highlight here? 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
3
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

Glenn, will you please break down the functional ways that public dissent has brought about real change in the US? When people are upset about a given issue, and there is strong resistance inside the government to changing the issue, what are the effective methods that have brought positive meaningful change? This is something not only applicable to Epstein but to every major issue where the public is left wondering "What can be done?". Voting and "calling your rep" doesn't solve these problems. So what has historically worked? What are comparable issues to the ones we are facing today? What are similar examples where bringing change failed, and why?

RIP Ozzie!

Will be reading your System Update transcripts in Locals for a while. Although I love listening to your commentary on Rumble's System Update, I'll say until later for now...but glad I subscribed to your Locals platform and will be reading transcripts there.
Thank you

post photo preview
Congress Again Dictates Curriculum & Faculty at Private Universities; How UnitedHealth Group Silences its Critics: With NYT Reporter David Enrich
System Update #488

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfbauxDuxae1Q7OSYafF8EtxqWgcnGfBQakVpf7_2lkyqUsxMIV9F9xarGlHSbAGRnHp1NLta2f2L6jisp3yNA42VZUXwrITHDKY9ypmDvR2iOApmWiNWnZr3yyN_LPG7AMjdNhBG7foLmBg1SneQg?key=QEh1F3pE6JzpBjyxrbPdRw

The desire to micromanage universities does not extend to all issues but seemingly just to one, namely, what can and cannot be said about Israel and about Jewish individuals in particular. As they have done countless times over the past 18 months, the House yesterday held a hearing on antisemitism in America's universities, hauling three more college presidents before them to interrogate them on why they allow certain people to teach or certain opinions about Israel or American foreign policy to be expressed. This is all accompanied by a growing trend, a rapidly growing trend of forcing these universities to implement radically expanded "hate speech" codes with the purpose of outlawing what can and cannot be said about Israel. We'll report on the latest House hearing and how it is directly assaulting the free speech and academic freedom rights of Americans. 

 Our guest was reporter David Enrich, who published an extremely well-reported and important article last week detailing the means that UnitedHealth Care is using to silence critics.

AD_4nXfbauxDuxae1Q7OSYafF8EtxqWgcnGfBQakVpf7_2lkyqUsxMIV9F9xarGlHSbAGRnHp1NLta2f2L6jisp3yNA42VZUXwrITHDKY9ypmDvR2iOApmWiNWnZr3yyN_LPG7AMjdNhBG7foLmBg1SneQg?key=QEh1F3pE6JzpBjyxrbPdRw

AD_4nXf1_wUNmtoxrkk5rq0NXdJFV2hnlTpLy24-W3G-jNOBya9JCCjtCrFLD0e0Aspirw9d65J-Wb06eZBG4SFf8V4ea93Z2rdHz0Xd3BsQVPfwMzzu9ElFS842GQmhM__M_jTBuAo1NQai96ZP67u_Ig?key=QEh1F3pE6JzpBjyxrbPdRw

Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene are two members of the House, both Republicans, who have often noted how often the House meets in order to discuss matters pertaining not to the lives of the American people, but to Israel or to combating criticism of Israel or to investigating the alleged epidemic of bigotry not against every minority group, but against only American Jews, notoriously, excluded from centers of power in the United States. It's like an obsession. They do it all the time. Every time I turn around, there's another hearing about antisemitism or about criticism of Israel being organized by the Republican-led House and Senate.

 Yesterday was no exception. The Committee on Education and Workforce, which is chaired by House member Virginia Foxx, a Republican of South Carolina who oftentimes has no idea where she is, it was entitled – and it sounds like a kind of woke thesis from one of these universities that they're so interested in:

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Promises More Weapons for Ukraine; Trump Again Accuses Dems of Fabricating Epstein Files
System Update #487

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfBU4ro-q9aUswaRI8GnHLooW9sJZdmVgqQBLEkN4tyxcvHGVXrgnEeOaekDchxD9mwYVLyJnQdzRcSNRBHfQiyle-ocy7CcqNP-qM2vwDxXYiAQhaeYLOEDbYE3FCsgvhjKynPjowcvqSxG26w9w?key=n1cm1L6bRhlXjVMH0CmEVg

Tonight, President Trump campaigned repeatedly on denouncing Joe Biden's policy of arming Ukraine in its war with Russia and vowing to end the war as soon as he got into office. Like so many of his promises, none of this happened, and now Trump, rather than ending Biden's war policy, is doubling down on it. With the NATO chief in the White House today, the supreme militarist Mark Rutte, Trump announced a new plan to arm Ukraine by sending the weapons through NATO, which he claims will pay for them. We'll see. A report in the Financial Times today also says Trump told Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy to try to use missiles to strike the key Russian cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Imagine if Russia had told a proxy of theirs, “We'll give you weapons, and we want you to strike New York, Los Angeles, and Washington.” This came after Joe Biden and his transition out of the White House for the first time authorized Ukrainian strikes inside Russia. Trump's policies are wrong and dangerous for the exact same reasons Biden's policy was in Ukraine, as we went over many times when he was president, and it's crucial to examine why that is and what Trump is doing. 

Also, when Trump first addressed the anger among his own supporters for having announced that he was closing the Epstein investigation with zero disclosures forthcoming, he did so by waving his hand and instructing everyone that this topic was far too trivial and insignificant to merit any attention, and he thus directed everyone to move on and simply stop talking about it. Some obeyed Trump, of course, but many did not, and he was thus compelled to return several times to address the obvious 180 his administration has done with regard to whether the various issues in this case would be investigated and whether the documents suitable for publication would be disclosed. 

But each time Trump has tried to calm his angry base with additional statements, he has only made things worse. How long can this charade go on? We'll examine the latest. 

AD_4nXfBU4ro-q9aUswaRI8GnHLooW9sJZdmVgqQBLEkN4tyxcvHGVXrgnEeOaekDchxD9mwYVLyJnQdzRcSNRBHfQiyle-ocy7CcqNP-qM2vwDxXYiAQhaeYLOEDbYE3FCsgvhjKynPjowcvqSxG26w9w?key=n1cm1L6bRhlXjVMH0CmEVg

One of the most significant policies of the Biden administration was the decision unanimously supported by every single member of the Democratic Congress, but also a majority of members of the establishment Republicans as well, to arm and fund the war in Ukraine. There were a lot of reasons why people objected to that, especially people on the right-wing populist faction who were supporting Trump. One of them was a cost issue, but another was just how dangerous it was. 

Why was Russia our enemy? Why are we making them our enemy? Why are they claiming that the war in Ukraine, which is about who governs the various provinces in the east of Ukraine, has anything to do with the lives of American citizens? And also, Russia is a nuclear power, which has made clear that they regard this war as existential to their national security. Something that the CIA has long said all the way back to the Bush administration, when Victoria Nuland and Condoleezza Rice wanted to put Ukraine in NATO. The head of the CIA under Obama, Bill Burns, who was in the Bush administration as well, wrote a memo that ended up being leaked by WikiLeaks, which basically said, Ukraine and NATO is a red line for Russia, not just for Putin and his supporters, but for even liberal anti-Putin critics, everyone in the entire political spectrum in Russia regards any NATO influence or presence in this country on the other side of its border – that was twice used to invade Russia in the 20th century, killing tens of millions of Russians in two world wars – obviously a very sensitive part of their border that they consider it existential, whereas the West does not. 

Putin was asking that the U.S. and NATO agree that Ukraine will never be a NATO member and the U.S. under Biden refused. And that was at least part of the reason why Putin then went into Ukraine. There were others. We've been over these many times, but Donald Trump had been steadfast in his opposition to Biden's policy of arming the war in Ukraine and promising repeatedly that as soon as he got into office, he would just tell each of them to cut it out, would threaten each or hold sanctions over their heads or whatever he had to do and the war would end very, very quickly. None of that has happened. Trump has increasingly come to blame Vladimir Putin principally for that, despite the flamboyant conflict he had in the White House with Zelenskyy. 

He's now done a 180 on the question of Ukraine as well. He is now announcing a massive influx of weapons from the United States to Ukraine that he intends to put through NATO, claiming that NATO countries are going to buy it from the U.S. through some unknown mechanism. NATO countries are already saying, “We're not going to wait for these weapons to get here. We're just going to send them to Ukraine, knowing that the U.S. is going to replenish our stockpile.” 

For all the talk about how Trump was splitting with Western Europe and questioning the value of NATO, here is the NATO chief, Mark Rutte, in the White House today. He's one of those EU maniacs who just want war in every way. When Trump went to the NATO summit a couple of weeks ago, Mark Rutte was so grateful that Trump had signaled that he was going to start funding and arming Ukraine again that he actually sat there and flattered Trump in the way that Trump loves them most. He actually called him daddy – you're kind of like a daddy. Sometimes, if the two sides aren't doing what you want, the daddy has to come and impose discipline, calling Trump daddy in front of the cameras. But of course, knowing that, although pretty embarrassing, that's how you can flatter and ingratiate yourself and then start influencing Trump. 

Today, the NATO chief was at the White House next to Trump and that's when Trump announced this new policy. Here it is. 

Video. Donald Trump, Mark Rutte, White House. July 14, 2025.

This claim that NATO agreed to 5% is through accounting smoke and mirrors. All they did was expand the definition of what “defense spending” includes. So it includes, in large part, the amount of money they've been pouring into the war in Russia, that they've been sending to Ukraine, but it also includes things like they can build infrastructure and, as long as they can demonstrate it has some connection to the military, that gets counted as military spending. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Is There Evidence of Epstein's Ties to Israel? Yes: Ample. Brazil's Chief Censor Orders Rumble to Ban US Citizen and Turn Over Data
System Update #486

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfKjrOkaRA3KGA9SqYKbfppAISLi5iAafzuW6HiklWethe_-i6XYMgqeFDlnIKla8Yh1NFa6c9kxVm3q-aZq6oV1wtIIUDUxn0IK97hE_6caZIKQ_eZLm1MmPx3Fhd6nVv-x8-59LgkGuOjgFYZqA?key=Jppo7ew-27yjOp_lOh-lUw

President Trump last week reacted with anger and dismissiveness when a reporter asked his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, at the White House, whether Jeffrey Epstein had connections with a foreign or domestic intelligence agency: “That's too trivial to even discuss,” Trump decreed. For her part, AG Bondi said she had no idea whether Epstein had any such ties, as if it were the first time she ever heard of that or considered it, and said she'd get back to us with the answer. Do not hold your breath. 

Then, after Tucker Carlson over the weekend said, at Charlie Kirk's Turning Points U.S.A. Conference, that he believes Epstein has ties to Israeli intelligence – something he said everyone in Washington knows – the attacks on Carlson were as intense and unified as anything I've ever seen. Former Israeli Prime Minister, Neftali Bennett, issued a carefully worded but enraged denial toward Carlson, vowing that he "won't take it anymore." 

Is there evidence that the serial pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein had ties to the Israeli government and its intelligence agencies, such as the Mossad? In a word: yes. Note that I did not say there was ‘proof’ – that's different – because only the U.S. government can show us the definitive evidence about this question, one way or the other, something that bizarrely they simply refused to do. We'll review all that evidence linking Epstein to the Israelis, not so much to prove that Epstein was an Israeli agent since we can't do that, but to demonstrate that there is very ample ground for asking that question and demanding the Trump administration show us what they have on this topic and all topics related to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Then: Just last week, President Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian products, in part, he said, because Brazil's Supreme Court and its chief censorship judge, Alexandre de Moraes, have been attacking the free speech rights of American citizens and American companies. Note, Trump said he was attacking the free speech rights of American citizens and American companies. Trump was referring at least in large part, if not exclusively, to Rumble, which was blocked from all of Brazil by Moraes for failure to obey his censorship orders. Now, as if to prove Trump's point, Moraes issued one of the most draconian orders yet, clearly defying Trump and provoking him into further action. We'll cover all that.

AD_4nXfKjrOkaRA3KGA9SqYKbfppAISLi5iAafzuW6HiklWethe_-i6XYMgqeFDlnIKla8Yh1NFa6c9kxVm3q-aZq6oV1wtIIUDUxn0IK97hE_6caZIKQ_eZLm1MmPx3Fhd6nVv-x8-59LgkGuOjgFYZqA?key=Jppo7ew-27yjOp_lOh-lUw

AD_4nXcgvWk-rDn8C4G_nCb535L4wt44ttiYFvschHlkSyFp6qAQSMB2Y6GIkYSK1FyRbVjo8LLXjHD2jT3EyfnidJ2rnO4FXFSAl0-abXhWq_uHToZ1TL7-BaJePftihSKV4F_VIuIq09XwC-rVnOX2uw?key=Jppo7ew-27yjOp_lOh-lUw

There are a lot of issues swirling around the Epstein case, and there have been for quite a long time, but I have always said, going back years – and this year leading up to the expectation that the Trump administration would finally give us the answers that its key officials had long been promising – that the most significant unanswered question, at least one of them, was whether Jeffrey Epstein had ties with or worked with or for an intelligence agency, foreign or domestic. 

The reason that's an important question is an obvious one. Namely, that intelligence agencies want as much dirt on people as they can get. That's why they spy on people. It's why they invent invasive surveillance technologies. The Israelis are masters of this. Most of the most pernicious spying programs, like Pegasus, emanate from Israel. The Israelis are notorious for using intelligence against “their allies,” like the United States, spying in person and spying digitally. 

Jeffrey Epstein was obviously somebody who had access to the most elite circles of the most powerful people who spent a great deal of time with him, consorting with him, staying with him, visiting him, flying with him, going to his island, even after he was convicted of soliciting minors for prostitution and having sex with minors. 

How is that even possible? You know somebody has been convicted or pled guilty to using minors as prostitutes, minors who can't consent, who are basically raped if you have sex with them, which is what Jeffrey Epstein did, and then you say, come to my house, I'm going to fly with you on your plane, I'm going to be your friend, I'm to spend a lot of time with you. Of course, all of that finally came to a head in 2018 when the evidence became overwhelming of all he had gotten away with and all the questions swirling around him, the U.S. government indicted him and then he allegedly committed suicide in prison. 

So, there have been a lot of questions, but, to me, the biggest one has always been if he was working with or for any foreign intelligence in part because his wealth was massive, clearly that of a multibillionaire. No one knows where his wealth came from. He was working as a teacher at a private high school, the Dalton School, even though he had no college degree, and then suddenly appeared out of nowhere as one of the world's richest people and couldn't explain to anybody what was the source of his vast wealth. He had cameras in all of these homes where all of this sex with underage people was taking place. It's exactly the kind of thing that any intelligence agency would die to get their hands on, especially if they have leverage over him; that's the one thing you would want from him, that kind of information. 

When Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino and the Trump administration announced they were closing this case because they found nothing incriminating, they ran to Axios, of all places, and leaked a memo on Sunday night announcing to the public that they found nothing incriminating. There was no blackmail. He definitely killed himself. No, there was no client list, even though they repeatedly said there was. But one thing they did not say is whether he was working with or for foreign intelligence agencies or domestic intelligence agencies, which is something that people have been asking for a long time. They didn't even address it. That's not one of the things they denied. They didn't even bother to address it, and so a very conscientious reporter, who I believe works for the New York Post, went to the White House during one of President Trump's press briefings, where his cabinet was, including Pam Bondi, and he asked Pam Bondi exactly that question. This is where Trump erupted with anger and said, "Move on, this is not even worth talking about.' And Pam Bondi basically said, "I don't know, never thought of it.". 

Here's just a reminder of what happened.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals