Congressman just leaked the truth..

The first time Jeffrey Epstein was uh was prosecuted, there was this uh you know there was this trial that took place and Trump's former labor secretary

Alexander Aosta was the prosecutor on the case who offered him a sweetheart plea bargain that no pedophile has ever gotten uh since or ever will he was

allowed to be released on work release while he was in prison. That's insane.

>> He abused people while he was released.

I mean that's how horrific this was. So,

uh, why do you think they're they're openly hiding, uh, this, uh, this side of the, uh, Jeffrey Epstein profile?

>> Well, because I know there was a huge amount of wrongdoing. That's one of the reasons we wanted that initial indictment draft cuz there were supposed to be 60 counts and all those 60 counts

would be exposed. Aosta prosecuted two counts. He got rid of all the 58. Then

counts. He got rid of all the 58. Then

he does the plea bargain. We wanted to see the memos. what went into the decision that that was reasonable and I'm sure their dissenting opinions of

people who said absolutely not. We

wanted to see that email correspondents that those memos they're hiding this because they know that they're rich and powerful people who intervened. They

know they know that justice was not done not just because obviously uh >> this guy is a co-sponsor of the deal

Maxwell Jane Maxwell Maxwell. You'd

think I know it by now. Gain Maxwell. I

always get the name uh messed up. Gain

Maxwell. But it was done because uh of rich and powerful men.

>> Yeah. Um absolutely. So, there's the financial elite that's uh obviously very connected to Jeffrey Epstein in ways that we already know in broad daylight, constantly in and out of like these

meetings, constantly photographed with him, some of which the House Oversight Committee is actually released, like the Democratic oversight committee has released as well. Uh uh partially from I

believe the um uh the the Epstein uh what is it called? Not the manner but like the the uh estate the data dumps that came the photographic dumps that came are are not just from the

investigation right like the the estate the epste estate >> two different things.

>> Yeah. So there's can you can you describe that?

>> There's the law that requires the justice department to release them.

>> Yeah.

>> And then there's the letter that I said Democrat. Yeah. I guess so state

Democrat. Yeah. I guess so state >> saying we got to release that information and comr who's the Republican chair subpoenaed him because of summer Lee's work and the and Robert

Garcia's work and they are uh they are releasing information. So they're two

releasing information. So they're two places we're getting these this information from.

>> Yeah. And uh so a lot of the a lot of the photos that were coming out uh from the oversight committee were coming from the estate from uh if I recall correctly. And yet, um, some of those

correctly. And yet, um, some of those files that would definitely be in the investigation and the Jeffrey Epstein files, right, from the court proceedings

are are redacted. Now, the reason why I'm bringing this up is because this invited a lot of scrutiny, a lot of suspicion that the Department of Justice

had actively redacted Donald Trump and many other high-profile players in American politics.

>> Yeah, exactly. from uh the the initial file release. One of the things that

file release. One of the things that they ended up doing, uh, and I I suspected that, uh, initially they would, uh, I suspected that initially they would most likely just offer a

little bit of red meat to the base and say like, "Oh, look, see, Bill Clinton, >> and and they did do that." And I also suspected that they would be so incompetent, as they have been over and over again, that they would still

somehow find a way to [ __ ] it up, which they did, right? And the oversight Dems actually called this out. Um, yesterday

we found out alongside the rest of the internet when the files were being released. Uh, there there was one photo

released. Uh, there there was one photo that actually made it through the sensors >> and this is the missing number that made it through the sensors.

>> Uh, but it was a photo that was in a drawer. So, I guess like

drawer. So, I guess like >> they didn't >> whatever. Yeah, they did not notice

>> whatever. Yeah, they did not notice that, you know, Donald Trump was was uh in some of the files. And um what the Department of Justice, from what we

understand now, did was when they realized that Donald Trump was in this photo, they just deleted it.

It It's the cover up is always worse than the crime. Someone was probably thought, "Oh, I'm going to get in trouble with Trump or the Trump White House." Uh

House." Uh >> is that true that they deleted the file?

>> Look, this is the this is the issue that is unraveling presidency. This is the only issue with

presidency. This is the only issue with the MAGA base. I haven't heard this >> is is is brazenly defying him. Why?

>> Because he said that he was going TO EXPOSE THESE PEOPLE THAT HE was going to expose these corrupt people who get one set of justice who raped young girls and he's going to bring justice. He's not a

perfect person. No one thinks that

perfect person. No one thinks that Donald Trump has led a perfect life expose these folks and return government to people and he's betrayed that promise. And that's why you've got you

promise. And that's why you've got you look at my feed. I encourage folks to just go and look at the X feed. I've got

more MAGA supporters standing up for me than I ever have in my entire political career. Yeah. They're they're staking my

career. Yeah. They're they're staking my side over Pam Bobby. They're going after the DOJ saying you're killing Donald Trump's presidency. He's right. And so

Trump's presidency. He's right. And so

this Yeah. Everyone says we got to take the fight to Trump to get take the fight to Trump. They all do memes against it.

to Trump. They all do memes against it.

Call him a fascist. Call him a dictator.

No one has actually been able to break the MAGA coalition. The reason Massie and I have actually been able to break the MAGA coalition is because we're actually saying we're on the people's side instead of the system side. That

the system is rotten. That's what we got to do as a first principle for the Democratic party. The system is rotten.

Democratic party. The system is rotten.

Too much big money, too much influence of wealthy people, too many people who are getting away with things, and that we're going to be on the side of the people against this rotten system. That

was what Trump was saying, but he hasn't delivered.

>> True.

>> No, absolutely. And uh I think this is from my analysis, it almost feels like this is one of the purest expressions of like uh class politics that Americans can get on board with. It's not

>> right.

>> It's not dialectics. It's not uh materialist at all, but it is like uh something that they have seen or something that they've suspected. Uh

there's obviously a lot of conspiracy around this sort of stuff. Like this was the whole motivating principle around QAnon, right? or Pizzagate or numerous

QAnon, right? or Pizzagate or numerous other conspiracies were not true at all.

>> But now what I am seeing is that uh there is uh >> there is definitely there are some people who see that this is valid as opposed to the previous formations of of

you know these sorts of conspiracy theories. This is there is evidence on

theories. This is there is evidence on this. Uh unlike um unlike people who uh

this. Uh unlike um unlike people who uh claim that uh these these super wealthy people were communicating with one another and like using code words for uh

child pornography or or uh you know ordering welfare or whatever. They were

pretty brazen. They were pretty open about like >> Jeffrey Epstein. There's stuff that came out from the files that Jeffrey Epste was mad at uh someone that was redacted

that was procuring children for him and they were over the age of 18 and he was like demanding to see their licenses to make sure that they were under the age of 18. They weren't.

of 18. They weren't.

>> Yeah. They were not using, you know, coded language at all. They were pretty flagrant. They were pretty blatant about

flagrant. They were pretty blatant about taking photos with these young girls.

thought they if the FBI is not even investigating it, what do they have to worry about? I mean, there documents

worry about? I mean, there documents saying, "I have a woman for you. I have

a girl for you." Right? I mean, it's just >> they're 18. I don't care a lot about that. 1200 victims. For anyone who says,

that. 1200 victims. For anyone who says, "Oh, they're not there's not other rich and powerful people who are involved.

One person is not abusing,200 people.

Just the math doesn't work up. There are

other people who either watched young girls be paraded around or raped them."

>> I told someone yesterday it was 500 to,000. The reason this is, I think,

to,000. The reason this is, I think, resonant is people feel an anger that they've lost their economic voice. They

don't control their own political voice.

True. There's something that's wrong with the system. And this is like the symbol of what's wrong.

>> Yeah. No, absolutely. Um it's a it's a perfectation of like how the superw wealthy get away with doing heinous crimes >> um while simultaneously uh controlling the levers of power. Right. He's right.

Um, and I think that's the reason why a lot of people this is a this is a bipartisan thing and not bipartisan in the sense that like uh politicians are on board with it but but this is a a

bipartisan issue uh in the eyes of the public and as you also suggested as you also correctly pointed out I believe it's it's Donald Trump's least popular issue with his base 54% disapproval as

opposed to every you know 80% approval rating on anything that Donald Trump is doing with the exception of this where there's 54% disapproval. So, it's pretty

disapproval. So, it's pretty significant. And um Oh my god.

significant. And um Oh my god.

>> One of the one of the angles that I wanted to cover here, however, uh that I feel like the media is noticeably absent

on or like omitting is uh the potential >> uh the the potential connection with not just the super wealthy, but like intelligence, right? Uh I know you're

intelligence, right? Uh I know you're I'm sure you've seen the drop site reporting on this. There was a there was >> just say it. uh Jeffrey Epstein's uh Jation

uh email address was was leaked uh was was hacked and and his entire uh correspondence with world leaders and everyone else uh was leaked for all to

see. And there has been very little

see. And there has been very little coverage on this from, you know, uh, the legacy publishers, unfortunately.

>> Uh, and and the only time I ever hear about this connection between Jeffrey Epstein and and potentially Israeli uh, intelligence, >> even though, uh, he is very clearly connected to Ehud Barack

>> and we knew about >> the previous prime minister of Israel and and numerous other uh, you know, he was in the photo with David world leaders. Uh, the only time Legacy Media

leaders. Uh, the only time Legacy Media covers this is to say it's an anti-Semitic conspiracy. It's to say,

anti-Semitic conspiracy. It's to say, "Oh, this suggestion is is so ridiculous." And I believe Thomas Massie

ridiculous." And I believe Thomas Massie also uh brought this up yesterday where he said a big part of the reason why there is a cover up is because uh it is very likely that Jeffrey Epste was

connected in some way, shape, or form to our intelligence and also to Israeli intelligence as well.

>> Um, do you have any opinions on that?

Well, my opinion is that that's why we need the release of the files. That's

why this was drafted in a way that would get the files that would get the national files. That's why the lawyers

national files. That's why the lawyers of the survivors say you need all the files, the financial files, the national security files, the FBI files, and anything that isn't a current national

security issue. To be honest, drafted it

security issue. To be honest, drafted it saying you can't overclassify information. Uh it if there's a not a

information. Uh it if there's a not a significant clear national security threat, then it has to be declassified.

So this will put to rest uh the the issue is if we could have transparency if the American people can see the files and if they can't see the files then uh

conspiracies will continue to grow whether true or not. And so I guess even the legacy media should be just calling for the release of the files.

>> Yeah. And there is this uh somewhat elitist attitude I feel like that at least I've seen. I I have tremendous respect for many journalists that I know and love that work at these outlets that want to do very good work and often

times do uh very good work, but uh overall I feel like the editorial teams and the way that they uh respond to this kind of stuff >> is to to simply say, "Oh, the public

doesn't know how to handle this uh this information." Exactly.

information." Exactly.

>> Um and uh and I think that's a dangerous >> uh that's a dangerous line of thinking in general. um the idea that uh people

in general. um the idea that uh people are too stupid to understand >> people can vote for the president but they can't see the evidence that invites additional scrutiny and that actually invites a lot of conspiracy theories uh

many of which can go down a dangerous path and actually do become anti-semitic conspiracy theories >> like the Jews control the media Israel that's what he's saying

>> is not assessed by uh credible actors yeah uh and in investigative reporters so I always um appreciate what Dropside is doing uh in terms of of doing that

investigation that investigative reporting and that work um there are you know connections between Jeffrey Epstein and and uh obviously Barack there's connections between

Jeffrey Epste and and uh and people that were possibly involved in Iran Contra >> that just recently >> unredacted most of 119 paint >> I guess one of the questions I have for you is um >> I I'll have to look at after this

>> there was another statement that Thomas Massie made that he said >> 20 to 25 people um if they are not outed as being co-conspirators or you know as

as you know being uh uh engaged with Jeffrey Epstein in some way uh uh shape or form by the time Friday comes around that means that there will there will have been heavy redaction in direct uh

in direct violation of the act that was passed.

>> Correct.

>> Um have y >> have you guys actually seen the unredacted files?

>> We have not. We've requested to see them. In fact, one of the things how is

them. In fact, one of the things how is it that you're a representative, you can't see it. Is putting together a committee of Congress, me, him, maybe some ridiculous committee to go and look

at these files, even if it's in a classified setting, to be able to say what complies and what doesn't comply because right now, uh, they have shown

no good faith in in complying. Uh and

the reality is we know that the survivors lawyers have seen the files and they have told us and the survivors have told us that there are other powerful men who either abused or raped these girls or showed up on the rape

island while these girls were being abused. I mean one it's not uh hard to

abused. I mean one it's not uh hard to visualize party a lot of models some of in their 20s and then you've got like this young girl walking around nude

who's 14 or 15 and all these rich powerful men there. Now my view is every person man there is guilty if they didn't say something. Yes. In terms of

abetting uh abuse of course >> and so it's not just men who actually abused or raped these girls. It's also

people who were showing up to these sick parties knowing that girls were being paraded around. And that's the type of

paraded around. And that's the type of information that we're if you were there you were get that 60count indictment. If

we get the 82page memo that the prosecutions wrote, and if we get the FD forms, the FBI forms of interviews of all of the men uh who were interviewed by the FBI to understand what happened.

I mean, how do you have a situation of a release where no one uh else's names are in there uh being investigated?

Obviously, there, 1200 victims, even if the FBI concluded that some of these people were innocent or not guilty, they would have interviewed them. They would

have been witnesses. They would have been questions. Where is all that stuff?

been questions. Where is all that stuff?

>> Um, no, absolutely. Uh, I guess redacted or they haven't even released many of the files yet, right? Like there's still so much that they are very clearly going through >> to to hit the heavy-handed redaction

that they did to the first trunch of of data that were that they were forced to release. Uh, even though that was also

release. Uh, even though that was also in violation of the act that was passed.

Exactly.

>> So my question and I'm sure everyone else's question here is what are the next steps here? the articles of impeachment right?

>> There are a few steps. First of all, obviously impeachment is on the table for Kim Bondi. There is criminal prosecution that she could face or uh others at the Justice Department could

face. And by the way, that criminal

face. And by the way, that criminal prosecution risk runs well beyond this administration. The next administration,

administration. The next administration, in my view, it can't just be Kumbaya.

There needs to be accountability for crimes committed. Accountability for

crimes committed. Accountability for crimes committed in ICE. crowdability

for crimes committed in the Caribbean where innocent boatman are being killed and accountability in I don't think they're innocent of complying with Massie and my Epstein transparency accountability is going to

be needed but Massie and I are also in the process of drafting a bill for contempt to Congress what does that mean Pam Bondi could be fined every day if she's not agreeing to release these

documents and we're going to propose a group of people in Congress a bipartisan group that gets to review these documents so that we can assess what is a legitimate redaction and what is not

uh and actually have her comply with the law because my goal is not retribution.

It's not to score a point. It absolutely

goal is justice for the survivors. No,

[ __ ] that. Should be retribution documents out one point.

>> Yeah, I'm pastice may have been a >> I'm way past it.

>> them just seeing, okay, what can we get get away with? And the outcry that's come out. Uh hopefully this pushes them

come out. Uh hopefully this pushes them to realize this that we're not done with this. Just the Christmas before

this. Just the Christmas before Christmas release isn't working. Yeah.

That there's going to be more demand for these documents to actually come out.

>> Yeah. So, that's one angle for sure. Um,

and I think that there is a lot of appetite across the board, across the political spectrum for everybody kind of everybody wants this >> uh some kind of transparency in all of this clearly. If that wasn't the case,

this clearly. If that wasn't the case, then Donald Trump wouldn't have signed this act into law to begin with, right?

>> Um, >> and they have uh they have mishandled this process. Uh, absolutely.

this process. Uh, absolutely.

>> Um, I guess what are the next steps? Not to, you know, not to throw curveballs here, but like what are the next steps if like Donald Trump offers a blanket pardon

>> across the board to everyone that's uh that's mishandling this uh or deliberately redacting things uh in violation of the law.

>> Well, he could do that and it would make it harder for them to be uh prosecuted in the future. Uh but you know, I mean, if do you really want to be a career Justice Department official or even

appointee having uh as the capstone uh on your career being pardoned by Donald Trump for protecting pedophiles? I mean,

that's really what people will be choosing. And then it'll be the next

choosing. And then it'll be the next administration that releases all of this. But it's gonna be not giving up

this. But it's gonna be not giving up because the the reason I believe it's possible to shift the administration is we shifted Trump from calling it a hoax to signing the bill because the one

thing he can read is public opinion.

Yeah. And he saw that this was going to be a huge story. It was hurting his presidency. In fact, he kept saying, "I

presidency. In fact, he kept saying, "I don't want to I don't know why we keep talking about Epstein. I want to talk about all my achievements." He knew it was the Achilles heel, the kryptonite of his administration. Absolutely. And so

his administration. Absolutely. And so

now realize that this was another whiff by Pam Bondi. Susan Wild said she keeps whiffing. I don't I don't She's so out

whiffing. I don't I don't She's so out of touch. She was supposed to meet the

of touch. She was supposed to meet the survivors and then she said, "Oh, I've got an appointment. I can't meet the survivors."

survivors." >> There was one thing that I wanted to bring up uh with Pam Bondi's inconsistency in the way that she's actually talked about this. Because

obviously initially uh uh when they when they got together and did this like fake release of the Epstein Files with all of the uh MAGA uh influencers and that was

a major W like they thought that >> this would satiate people's appetite for the truth >> and very clearly uh it was all the stuff that we had access to already

>> and um and I think they thought that uh the people would just not demand more where they were like oh yeah were tuned in. We saw this,

in. We saw this, >> you know, libs of Tik Tok was was celebrating that they got this uh this trunch of data.

>> Um >> but in the process, the binders, remember that >> there were certain things that Pam Bondi had said that we now know are absolutely untrue. The notion, for example, that a

untrue. The notion, for example, that a lot of the uh CSAM that was in the Epstein files was commercially bought Cam. Um, we now know that there is, you

Cam. Um, we now know that there is, you know, we we we now know that that's probably not true, right? Because, uh,

there is a lot of, uh, not just redacted, but like Cam slips that are all over the Epstein files that both realistically.

>> Obviously, they're not going to digitize copies of child sexual abuse material, but like it's very clear that that was a hard copy that wasn't actually like digitally acquired or anything like that. There's instances where Jeffrey

that. There's instances where Jeffrey Epstein personally is is actually um um like procuring or creating CESAM as well with 14-year-old victims. And

>> we unfortunately saw some of that.

>> The notion that this was >> more like six, remember that? That was

crazy.

>> Uh the notion that this was just Jeffrey Epstein's doing that he was just simply procuring all of this stuff for himself >> sick >> is very clearly untrue.

>> It's obviously untrue. that

inconsistency uh does that does that reach the boundaries of perjury? I mean

is there or does that only happen if Congress >> the biggest thing is she's obstructed justice. She can be impeached because of

justice. She can be impeached because of course she didn't comply with the law. I

mean that's the obstruction of justice and that's grounds for impeachment is grounds for criminal prosecution. True.

She also lied, right? I mean she stood up in front of the country and said there's nothing more to see. released

everything and by their own admission they're releasing hundreds of thousands of more documents. What changed? How how

did they suddenly find all these documents? By the way, there are 300

documents? By the way, there are 300 gigabytes of files on the Epstein files.

How do I know this? Three and a half or two in front of Congress said they're 300 gigabytes and they've released yesterday 2.5 gigabytes. You can do the math. I mean, they've got hundreds of

math. I mean, they've got hundreds of thousands more documents. And what are these documents? All the interviews,

these documents? All the interviews, they're 1,200 witness, 1,200 survivors.

All the interviews that they were conducted, all the other men who were on the island, all the other men who participated in this, I mean, >> bigger than war zone. Yeah. Bigger than

Call of Duty documents. We don't want just random uh files. We don't want just random photos. We want to know who was

random photos. We want to know who was on that island. Yeah. Who knew about these young girls being raped? Who

engaged in videos for abuse or sex on that? They should explain it because

that? They should explain it because that's in the billation is in those those obligated to explain that FBI witness interview FD FD files.

>> Yeah. Also, what level of involvement did Steve Bannon have, for example, another Trump affiliate that we know was deeply connected to Jeffrey Epstein? And

uh there's a lot of inconsistency in the way that he's also presented himself here. Um at first

here. Um at first >> uh after uh uh Julie K. Brown's uh

investigative reporting at the Miami Herald, When the second Yeah, she's amazing. Uh when the second uh Epstein

amazing. Uh when the second uh Epstein trial was starting, Bannon actually went to Jeffrey Epstein and uh and and conducted these interviews in the form

of of deposition training and to do PR >> and then uh you know when the when the attitude shifted against Jeffrey Epste even uh even more than it had, he very

quickly turned around and said, "Oh, I'm just shooting a documentary." Right? But

there are so many photos of Steve Bannon >> uh being chummy with Jeffrey Epstein.

>> Why is none of that in the investigation? Why was that redacted? I

investigation? Why was that redacted? I

mean, this is not even Donald Trump at that point. This is a a totally

that point. This is a a totally supposedly unaffiliated person. So,

>> like, why is the Department of Justice Why is the Department of Justice uh uh not only uh sheltering Donald Trump, but sheltering uh Trump allies who are

political operatives themselves? I mean,

that's not a matter of national security right?

>> No, they're sheltering rich and powerful people. Yeah.

people. Yeah.

>> Just like they're sheltering the survivors. I mean, the whole point of

survivors. I mean, the whole point of the Epstein Act was that we want to know who these rich and powerful people were.

>> Yeah.

>> That they weren't charged. Usually, the

Justice Department doesn't release things on people who weren't charged because they figure, well, your reputation shouldn't be destroyed if you weren't charged. But in this case, we

weren't charged. But in this case, we know that the process was corrupt. We

know that the law enforcement couldn't be trusted. Yeah. We know that they

be trusted. Yeah. We know that they didn't follow the FBI uh tips that we know that they didn't prosecute. So in

this case, the American public is saying we do want everything out there because the justice system let these women down.

>> Yeah. Justice delayed is justice denied and the justice has been delayed. And

the further they uh the the the further that like uh the Department of Justice tries to engage in this cover up, >> they're only expecting themselves injustice that they participated in.

Everybody sees it.

>> Um, so what do you, this is actually a good question. What would you think is

good question. What would you think is like a like a solid example of a legitimate national security hypothetical for you?

>> What would be a real example of like a national security national security concern that they engaged reduction on?

there was actually hypothetical some conversation where it would expose someone who uh is a spy or an CIA agent uh and expose who they are and their identity or expose their family. That

actually does make sense.

>> You don't want to put people at risk in those roles. uh if there if Epstein

those roles. uh if there if Epstein happened to know something because he knew a lot of powerful people about our national uh secrets in terms of our uh

uh sensitive weapons or sensitive information. You wouldn't want that out

information. You wouldn't want that out there. That's probably that's a

there. That's probably that's a reasonable answer to be honest there being comments made about a foreign leader that you don't want the American

president to be exposed in that way or another country thinking something. So

there are cases and we can debate what those cases are. People often say why did you not write the bill in a way that said everything has to come out and not even have an exception for classified

information. And anyone who's been in

information. And anyone who's been in Congress more than a day will tell you there's no chance anything like that would pass. There too many people in

would pass. There too many people in Congress would say would just find that as the excuse. Con and Massie want to get rid of classified information. So,

we'd had the narrowest possible classified drafting uh to be able to get that bill through.

>> Okay. So that for the record that in and of itself though I I think does lend even further credence to the suspicion that um there was um like some kind of

uh involvement with the intelligence communities which is one of the uh prevailing narratives that uh is often led >> Epstein was either willingly or

unwillingly an IDF like mainstream calling this a conspiracy theory.

>> Um but obviously it goes beyond that as well. There are people who are not, you

well. There are people who are not, you know, CIA affiliated that are >> very lonely. It's uncertain being sheltered here very clearly. There's

also the redactions as we have seen from the actions >> that uh the the Department of Justice took after people realized that they failed to redact some of the Donald

Trump photos. And this is like silly,

Trump photos. And this is like silly, right? Whoever whoever took off go to

right? Whoever whoever took off go to jail. um

jail. um >> 100% >> as far as >> like I'm not even I straight up [ __ ] like that's disgusting >> potential involvement of Israel. Are you

are you familiar with the drop site reporting on this stuff like I'm I'm familiar with the back and forth correspondence that has taken I mean

even with these files there was one photo with David Blaine >> uh doing hold on let me see if I can pull it up real quick doing magic tricks

uh in a room with Jeffrey Epstein and also former prime minister of Israel Ehoud Barack former prime minister of Israel Ahoud Barack had also So, um, is it David Copperfield? I thought

it was David Blaine.

>> It was David Blaine.

>> Anyway, here it is. Uh, magic tricks.

Performing magic tricks for for uh Jeffrey Epstein. Is this David

Jeffrey Epstein. Is this David Copperfield? No.

Copperfield? No.

>> Am I wrong? I don't know. One of the magic guys. Uh, performing magic tricks

magic guys. Uh, performing magic tricks for Epste and a few notable names including Israeli prime minister at the time Brock.

>> That >> and uh the the question I have no that is David Blaine. Okay, you guys are >> Copperfield also did it as well. I don't

know why everyone is is is so worried about who the magician is here. I'm not

I'm not implying that the magician is the is the is the important figure in this. Okay. Anyway,

this. Okay. Anyway,

>> um even though both were involved in different ways, doesn't matter. Um

>> right.

>> So, it's things like this.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh it's it's things like this that that uh people understandably want answers for.

Um, do you feel like >> omitting this kind of stuff or refusing to talk about this kind of stuff is is >> uh is is adding on to the scrutiny that people have for mainstream media?

>> It is and it should.

>> Yeah, I think it all should come out and we drafted that's why the classified exception we drafted was the narrowest possible debate that you have to justify it. It can't be uh excessively used. It

it. It can't be uh excessively used. It

can't be used to to cover up what actually took place. and we drafted it with the narrowest way in a way that could still pass the Congress because the reality is if the bill doesn't pass the Congress there's there's no use to

it. But that is why what we're saying is

it. But that is why what we're saying is that there needs to be people like Massie and me who get to see these documents and then we can have a there has to be somebody outside of the circle on is it truly something uh redacted

because it's going to protect the survivors or families or protect certain classified information or should this be out there? My view is if you don't have

out there? My view is if you don't have this out there, that's how you, as you pointed out, have conspiracy theories take hold. I mean, if there's nothing to

take hold. I mean, if there's nothing to hide, put it out there. Let people let people make that determination. By the

way, the biggest thing that could be out there is the indictment, the 60page indictment, so people know foreign involvement. I mean, that

foreign involvement. I mean, that indictment will say that right there. If

there was no >> if there was no evidence in that indictment of uh foreign interest, that would be a big tell that okay, maybe there wasn't there. If the indictment says, "Look, here are the uh here are

the 60 counts and here are the things that were happening from overseas, that would be a big issue. That's why we explicitly >> Wait, this is the indictment for the second uh investigation or the first one?"

one?" >> This is the 60page indictment, 60count indictment that the assistant US attorney in Florida put together in 2007.

>> Oh, yeah. This is back in the day that that Acasta ignored and then charges just two counts.

>> Those are 60 counts. You don't have 60 counts just of >> how do you ignore 60 counts of this behavior?

>> 60 counts of money laundering and transactions. We want to see all of that

transactions. We want to see all of that and that that will get to the questions that you've been asking.

>> So that the other side of the story also uh is is uh Alexander Aosta is out there, you know, like he is out there.

Is there any uh demand to maybe pull him in front of Congress? Is that something that you guys can undertake? like he was the labor secretary at the time. He came

he came before the oversight committee, but I he's just not, you know, I I don't think we can believe >> uh believe him. I mean,

>> so cuz cuz there is the the the famous uh secondhand uh uh the the uh there was some reporting in the media at the time that uh when he was labor secretary and

he resigned u because of the the Epstein stuff. Uh there was this question where

stuff. Uh there was this question where he was like, "Oh, well, at the time someone made uh someone led me to believe that he was actually intelligent, someone from higher up."

Because there was also a subsequent federal investigation that was taking place and there were a lot of of co-conspirators that actually were sheltered from >> where was the photo taken at in the

photo evidence >> seemingly was not evidence but deleting sweetheart plea bargain that was there's no there's no instance where

>> uh there's this virtual rec uh where you find so many people who are criminally liable potentially for for financial crimes and and potentially for sex crimes as well, trafficking of

minors where all of the other people that were were um engaging in these acts are not only uh not only given blanket uh protection, blanket immunity,

>> uh but they're but we don't even know who they are as unindicted co-conspirators at all. Like it's it's unimaginable. It's unheard of. It's off

unimaginable. It's unheard of. It's off

the books.

>> No, you're absolutely right. I'm seeing

some of the questions. It says it a great thing you get instantaneous feedback. One, why is there no

feedback. One, why is there no mechanism? There is. The

mechanism? There is. The

obstruction of justice in this is one of the big mis misconceptions out there. Anyone who

doesn't violate who violates a congressional law by definition is obstructing justice where Congress has asked it for it for justice purposes and can be face decades in prison for that.

So the question is not uh is there an enforcement mechanism, it's are we going to actually have it enforced and if it's not going to be enforced by this administration, it needs to be enforced by the next one. The second point is

that Acasta should be prosecuted if he's uh if there's clear evidence that of perjury. I mean that that you know you

perjury. I mean that that you know you can't come in and lie uh lie to Congress.

>> Well, now he has um now he has a cushy job at Newsmax because I've been following his career. It's very

interesting going from, you know, Florida prosecutor upstart to like labor secretary under Donald Trump to then uh resigning in disgrace or at least like trying to quietly exit the Trump administration when the Epstein stuff

was >> uh was coming back to the forefront only to now sit on the board I believe of Newsmax. That's what he's doing for him.

Newsmax. That's what he's doing for him.

There's got to be an accountability of what did he know? The reason it's so hard to prosecute all these individuals and hold them accountable is we don't have the files. So, you know that there's got to be the evidence of of of

what came out and then we can say, "Okay, now we know that someone was lying or not lying."

>> Um, absolutely. So, there is also I mean there is also the question of of um Cash Patel. Didn't Patel say that there were

Patel. Didn't Patel say that there were no other individuals that could be charged in front of Congress?

>> He did say that.

>> Um there is also >> how does he know that? I mean the survivors don't believe that. You know,

do they think that all 1,200 survivors were raped and abused by Epstein? Of

course not. There were other people involved >> and they themselves according to Thomas Massiejury to the lawyers survivors >> uh say that there is at least 20 to 25

were >> uh that are supposed to be in the first trunch of data that came out that was supposed to come out uh yesterday were were supposed to be outed. that that

that was the whole point of the release and not a single person we don't have any single information about someone who was engaged in the abuse or cover up of the abuse beyond Maxwell and Epstein and

that's why this thing is uh is a farce and that's why Massie and I are upping the the the ante saying we will use all our powers whether it's inherent

contempt whether it is impeachment referral for prosecution see this is what I've wanted the reality is should do this with everything and I have uh been effective on this issue in uh

because we have cracked the MAGA coalition because it's bipartisan because we're taking on a corrupt system. The only person who cracked it

system. The only person who cracked it was this is a corrupt system that has led to billionaires accumulating value.

We need to have a billionaire tax in this country, a wealth tax. It's led to overseas wars. We shouldn't be bombing

overseas wars. We shouldn't be bombing people uh innocent people on boats in the Caribbean.

>> There needs to be an AI kind of system to the Iraq war which was wrong. It led

to us at 20 years in Afghanistan. It led

to the overthrow of Libya, which was a foreign policy blunder. It led to a supporting of Netanyahu and the genocide which the Israeli government committed

in Gaza and a blank check. And I was one of the few politicians who stood up and said no to the 14 billion. and who has gotten on uh Delia Ramirez's bill to say

uh block military sales to Netanyahu's government and who's gotten on Rashida Talib's resolution so happy say government did was a genocide but the point of all of this is we are not going

to have politicians willing right to tell the truth >> when it comes to things like Epstein how do you expect them to tell the truth about issues of foreign policy how do you tell the truth about issues of

economic policy the currency of modern politics should be courage and truthtelling, not just charisma and memes. Is are you going to stand for

memes. Is are you going to stand for principle in this country?

>> I like this guy. This guy's he's really cooking.

>> The big media landscape and the people's attitude has changed quite dramatically since the first time we had a conversation at the DNC. If you recall, you were one of the you were one of the congress persons leading the charge

against Israel. Um and and even then

against Israel. Um and and even then there was a lot of restraint for you know saying certain things about Israel back then that many Democrats didn't even brooch obviously and I think that

that played a role in uh the the Democrats losing to it did play a role in the data shows that >> so that's actually something I wanted to ask you about this is not to the same degree of severity as the Epstein

redactions but >> uh Ken Martin recently said uh that they would not release the autopsy or the assessment uh that that came out about

how the uh Kla Harris campaign, how the Democrats lost the Donald Trump. How do

you feel about that?

>> Well, they should obviously release it.

I mean, yeah, duh. It's just kind of arrogance to not release it. But

>> Well, you know why you lost, you know?

I'm I'm not crying because that autopsy was done by consultants and I'm not sure that I need to listen to DC consultants about what we did wrong.

That's it. It just kind of speaks to this sense of lack of accountability.

Like we need to we need to understand that the American people are upset at the entire system. They're upset at both parties. They want a new generation of

parties. They want a new generation of leadership. They are sick of speeches

leadership. They are sick of speeches that go like this. Uh I want to renew the American dream. I want us all to have an equal opportunity. I want us all to have a great life. And you said nothing. People want brass tax.

nothing. People want brass tax.

>> How about specifics? Do you stand for Medicare for all? You stand for taxing billionaires in a wealth tax. You stand

for cutting the bloated defense budget.

You stand for not giving Netanyahu a blank check of military sales. Are you

willing to say what happened was a genocide? Are you willing to stop Wall

genocide? Are you willing to stop Wall Street from buying up single family homes? Are you willing to hold people

homes? Are you willing to hold people accountable who've committed crimes with violating the Epstein Transparency Act?

Are you matters to powerp if you're just going to give platitudes?

>> It doesn't matter how many consultants you get.

We used to need to use the word affordability. We need to use the word

affordability. We need to use the word higher prices. That's not lower prices.

higher prices. That's not lower prices.

That's not what >> wins. Thank you. So, this is actually

>> wins. Thank you. So, this is actually something that I've been very critical about as well. I think a lot of people on the Democratic party side as well are either deliberately

uh obiscating Zoramani's victory in New York against all odds against the Democratic establishment as well as uh the media >> uh who were very critical of him. who's

discrediting it >> or uh the the the people on the Democratic party side who said, "Oh, this is just affordability as a buzzword right?"

buzzword right?" >> And my my frustration ask yourself why it's buzzing is >> it's not just saying affordability is a problem. You also have to have tangible

problem. You also have to have tangible policy prescriptions and you have to really hammer on those tangible policy prescriptions and that's precisely what Zoraman did in New York that that that uh played a formative role in his

victory like a a campaign that is anchored around policies. You mentioned

a couple of them. Medicare for all is a fantastic >> tangible direct policies that affect individual one. I'm totally on board

individual one. I'm totally on board with with uh those those issues. Um, do

you do you feel like the Democrats in the absence of of unifying around >> these key issues who keep leaning on to

the likes of the welcome pack or other consultantbacked uh consultantbacked movements that are trying to dilute the message a little bit and and to simply say no no no you don't understand the people actually want marginal

improvements and here is the polling that suggests that this marginal improvement is actually much more successful.

Um, do you do you feel as though that is playing a role in uh in why the Democratic Party as a whole is still incredibly unpopular in the face of Trump's incompetence?

>> It's the weird social issues.

>> Yes. Look,

>> that's what I think it is. It's weird

social issues.

>> We're not going to have Kumbaya unity.

>> I think they win on economic issues.

>> The lowest common denominator. I mean,

you can't say I'm for affordability and then go to the billionaires and say, "Give me some money and I'm not going to raise your taxes." I mean, you have to stand for things. And when you stand for things, you're going to upset people.

You're going to upset people if they have to pay higher taxes if they're billionaires. They may still support

billionaires. They may still support you, but you got to be honest with them like FDR was. You're going to upset private insurance companies if you're for Medicare for all. You're going to upset the defense industrial base if

you're saying we're going to cut the defense budget. You're gonna upset

defense budget. You're gonna upset pharmaceuticals if you're taking away shouldn't pay a higher price than other countries and if not we'll take away your patents. You you have to be willing

your patents. You you have to be willing to ch challenge economic power >> and and the Democrats kind of don't want to do that. So what are we going to have? They've been totally taken over 26

have? They've been totally taken over 26 and 208 and the fight is going to be uh are we just going to be a party that says Trump is bad and he's terrible. Are

we just going to be the party that says we're going to stop agents from ripping away kids from their families and deporting innocent people tariffs that in some cases have increased food prices and we're going to

stop the assault on the Department of Education and US aid and the hollowing out of NIH and the attacks on universities. All of that is needed, but

universities. All of that is needed, but I don't think it's enough. I don't think it's enough. I don't want to just be the

it's enough. I don't want to just be the anti-Trump party and return to how things were. I want to be the party that

things were. I want to be the party that says that ordinary Americans have the Republican party was the anti-Obama party that have not helped them but have

helped the feds that we have seen them >> suffer with medical debt at the expense where private insurance has profited and that we are going to have a bold progressive agenda.

>> Billionaire taxes, Medicare for all, $10 a day childare. Stop Wall Street and private equity from buying up single family homes, thousand new trade schools, free public college, stop

giving a blank check to Israel, uh, and start investing in home in our communities.

>> If you run this for America to build up good paying jobs here and by the way, stand with workers over AI. Don't have

just AI eliminate all jobs.

with truck drivers and warehouse workers and I think you should focus on UBI and that we have AI technology not be stopped but be developed in a way that helps workers. We need a vision in this

helps workers. We need a vision in this country and that is what I think that the fight has to be in 2026 and 2028.

The Epstein issue for me is just a proof point of character. Call out the Epstein class so you can have the trust to call out a corrupt system that hasn't been working for ordinary >> Americans. It's a litmus test in the

>> Americans. It's a litmus test in the same way that like I think Israel was a litmus test. I often would tell people

litmus test. I often would tell people uh that would accuse me of being so single-minded on this issue that not only was it morally repugnant and of course I was going to stand against

genocide, but that this lack of movement around uh Israel or the the complete defense of Israel's genocide was actually a litmus test for a lot of people that that caused them to check

out of politics in general and refuse to vote because >> they're disgusted and mad and Epstein will be the same thing. it'll demotivate

them.

>> Said at the time, a party that uh doesn't want to save lives against the genocide, what makes you think they will preserve democracy? And that was the

preserve democracy? And that was the assessment that a lot of people made, even if they didn't specifically say that, but they were just like, I don't these guys don't stand for me. They

don't care about my interests at all.

And >> and I think that's where we're at. Back

to Israel. Democrats refusal to to recognize this reckoning, this populist reckoning that's coming uh from the bottom up is the reason why they're

still sitting at like a tremendous negative disapproval rating.

Like it's a negative 50 to 60 >> uh when they are supposed to um >> not um when they're supposed to be very popular because they're supposed to be

the opposition to Donald Trump, right?

>> So it's not enough. And um so I I'm I'm glad that you're calling this stuff out and uh I really I really appreciate that you're you know you have you've noticed

the the tide shift uh that has moved uh away from the establishment Democrats and the way that they are uh the way that they are trying to present themselves. Um you've called out Chuck

themselves. Um you've called out Chuck Schumer uh quite a bit.

>> Well, it was the first Democrat to call on him to step down. Yeah.

>> And then people said, "Bro, your career is over. You can't get any bill through

is over. You can't get any bill through the Senate." And then one week later

the Senate." And then one week later there is Chuck Schumer reading Ro Kana's bill the Epstein transparency act acting for unanimous. You know what

for unanimous. You know what progressives need to learn that when you're strong bend to you when you're strong in your convictions then people will come to you. So one thing actually

Donald Trump as terrible as he is that if you are strong then people will come to you. What we are is so weak we say oh

to you. What we are is so weak we say oh we can't criticize Chuck Schumer because Chuck Schumer then will not move my bill. I just showed you you can call for

bill. I just showed you you can call for Chuck Schumer to step down and he still went and he introduced my bill with unanimous consent because I had the people on my side. We have so many

politicians are more concerned about building friendships with Chuck Schumer than building friendships with our base.

If we have the base, if we have the American voters, that's all that matters. Policies the politicians will

matters. Policies the politicians will follow. I don't court the politicians. I

follow. I don't court the politicians. I

court the people. And that's the fundamental difference in uh who we will have leading this party in 26 and 28.

Are you going to be with the people or are your is your constituency the people in Washington DC?

>> So um question for you uh in in all of this calculation that's taking place right now because there is definitely this uh this attitude shift. I've

noticed it as well. You have the likes of Graham Platner in spite of like uh their you know inconsistencies from their past with like all this opposition research coming out. It seems like the

Democratic base of support that previously would move on the whims of of you know MSNBC now known as MS now and and establishment Democrats are actually

demanding more radical politics and do actually see that as the the pathway towards electability. in the past

towards electability. in the past >> uh mainstream outlets for a lot of the same voters on the Democratic primaries that are you know those who go out and vote you know the older Democrats they

would they would be moved by uh the the editorial board of the New York Times when the New York Times said >> electability is actually about moderate uh you know about modery electability is about moderate Democrats you have to

vote for moderate Democrats they would they would believe uh people but I think the sequence of of electoral defeats >> Trump proved that being moderate isn't required >> uh who previously

>> I think that Mitt Romney also showed that being success in demanding more from Democrats and are totally on board with much more quote unquote radical politics like Medicare for all

>> uh which is not radical at all obviously um and and so now you're seeing a the the messaging shift a little bit on the Democrat side. Uh what do you have to

Democrat side. Uh what do you have to say about people that uh will come out and be like, "Oh, I'm not taking any AP pack donations now." It's great. It it

>> it it is a market change, right? Unheard

of. Uh 5 years ago, people used to criticize Bernie Sanders for saying he's not going to speak at Apac. They would

say they would have the audacity to even say like speak and >> is spending against me in my district calling me a liar right now because I

co-sponsored Rashidita Talib's bill recognizing what the UN recognized that the Israeli government has committed a genocide. I bet they don't like

genocide. I bet they don't like Palestine. But look, I I'm glad that

Palestine. But look, I I'm glad that politicians are are are saying that. I

don't take any pack money. I don't take any lobbyist money. But here's the point. That's not enough. First of all,

point. That's not enough. First of all, because money can go through different organizations and different people. They

may have always quote unquote through Apex website, but those same donors can then hold some other new entity >> or subsidiaries. DMFI is another one, Democratic Majority for Israel and and

also the same exact American donor base can still go and and give these guys money as you said.

>> But so my point is where do you stand on a policy? Right. I said to someone that

a policy? Right. I said to someone that I think that one thing that the Democratic primary will will want in the future leaders of the party is just the ability to say that what happened in

Gaza uh was a genocide by the UN.

>> I think this is a vocabulary priority. said, "Of course, when you ask

priority. said, "Of course, when you ask someone what do they care about to me, that's not like a huge thing. I want to make sure I have a job. I want to make even if you don't define it as a genocide, it's very clearly bad uh have

housing. I want to make sure people

housing. I want to make sure people living wage." But people don't vote just

living wage." But people don't vote just on who's going to increase minimum wage or who's going to help their grocery bills. They also vote for a sense of

bills. They also vote for a sense of character, of values, of who they want to be as a people. That's why a lot of people didn't vote for Trump. uh issue

of Gaza goes to who we are. Are we going to deny things that we all saw with our own eyes? Are we going to lie to

own eyes? Are we going to lie to ourselves about who we are as a people?

Or are we going to aspire to be a people that treats people everyone with dignity and human rights? And yes, of course, what I care about is a job and housing and living wage. But if you don't speak

to people's values, if you don't speak to their sense of morality, you'll never get them knocking on doors and giving years of their lives. Uh, and that the

emotional appeals do get people more invested and inspired. They've never had to lead. They've never had to mobilize.

to lead. They've never had to mobilize.

They've never had to organize.

>> I mean, this is a conversation that you and I had at the DNC specifically on the issue of Gaza, but also beyond that on immigration. If you recall, um, one of

immigration. If you recall, um, one of the major, uh, pain points for someone like myself was the anger, uh, that I had for the Democrats and their inability to deal with the issue of immigration because they were so scared

of what they were seeing in the polls about 60% of Americans being in favor of mass deportation. At the time, I said to

mass deportation. At the time, I said to you that like this is going to change inevitably. And then there will be

inevitably. And then there will be Democrats who were uh pro- more stringent uh uh you know the Democrats that leaned into the white nivist hysteria concocted by the Republicans

instead of counter messaging against that.

>> I think they should all deported.

>> We're going to look inconsistent or hypocritical ridiculous. And we're there

hypocritical ridiculous. And we're there now. Public attitude is swung

now. Public attitude is swung dramatically in the opposite direction.

Uh 79% of Americans favor immigration.

Uh it's the highest uh it's totally dishonest rating that immigration has gotten in the history of the United States talking about illegal aliens versus immigrants.

>> We took a year of of you know black bagging and kidnapping and and mass deportation initiatives that were implemented.

>> Um >> so the the question I have both for immigration uh >> he's right about this but he's immigration for now. Um, what do you

think is going to be uh the the uh broader Democratic Party sentiment at the national level uh against immigration now? Do you think that it's

immigration now? Do you think that it's still going to uh demand uh some kind of, you know, middle of the ground approach where they're like, "Yeah, you know, some of these guys are actually rapist monsters and we do have to deport

them." Implying that, you know, Joe

them." Implying that, you know, Joe Biden's administration wasn't doing that, which is a lie. Of course, they were. If someone is doing a crime,

were. If someone is doing a crime, non-immigrant, they're going to get prosecuted. Well, then how are they

prosecuted. Well, then how are they arrested so many times and are still here?

>> As though uh Democrats will be more bold >> and question the legitimacy of the the vitriolic systematic nivist

anti-immigrant sentiment that was >> uh fermented in this country.

>> Look, I'm the son of immigrants. My

parents came here from India. When I

still go on a plane, even when I'm going in a congressional delegation, my mom says, "Please don't lose your passport."

I say, "Mom, I got like the military with me. There's such a fear that

with me. There's such a fear that immigrants have of uh loss." And I saw uh how they adjusted in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. And we had a very

Pennsylvania. And we had a very welcoming community, but the sense of having an accent, the sense of when you go in a restaurant and they would always order and say, "No, we don't want the ice." And I said, "Mom, they serve ice

ice." And I said, "Mom, they serve ice in these restaurants. I mean, you got to just get rid of the ice." And I I I understand what it's like to be an immigrant. And here's what I know.

immigrant. And here's what I know.

Immigrants make this country better.

Immigrants contribute. Immigrants are

patriots, not the illegal aliens.

Immigrants start small businesses. My

mom would tell me, "Learn every single word in the English language because that's what's going to make you a a a patriot contribute to this country."

>> So if you come here, learn English.

Remember what my tweet was about this country to contribute to this country.

And I am tired.

>> And they work hard. They work hard. They

work smart to be a part of this country.

part of this this our party starting with immigrants is the problem. Yeah.

>> As opposed to what immigrants do. If you

know if I were in charge when they were talking about eating the dogs and cats, you know what I would have done? I would

have said our candidates should go to Springfield, Ohio, and they should stand with those Haitian immigrants and they should start to talk about what those Haitian immigrants are actually doing.

>> Humanizing humanizing the migrant population against like all the racialized animists.

>> Instead, every trip we took was to the border. I'm not saying shouldn't be

border. I'm not saying shouldn't be here. But they weren't eating cats and

here. But they weren't eating cats and dogs.

>> Don't Don't talk about that. Why are you always leading with that? Lead with what the community is doing. Now it was stupid for him to have said that.

>> You got to be with a place of conviction. I got crushed

conviction. I got crushed >> a couple months after the election. I

went on Bill Marsh show against the Lake and Riley Act and I said that because even if someone has committed a criminal act in this country, we have due process. We don't

just take someone and deport them.

That's why I voted against Lake and Raleigh and the audience clearly I lost that debate. I lost I mean if you look at the ridiculous my team was like what you know you got crushed.

>> Where are those liberals at now on this?

>> But you know what I stuck my >> same place >> and now the vote looks like it was the right vote. Now everyone's come around

right vote. Now everyone's come around and you know what the people who voted for Lake Rally they just hope everyone forgets and most of the country will forget. But progressives don't forget

forget. But progressives don't forget what what do I mean by a progressive? A

progressive is simply someone who looks at this person's record who looks beyond the rhetoric due process. Makes Bernie

Sanders so popular because he had voted for the same thing for consistent years.

People do their homework because they don't want just someone who's going to say the right thing in the right moment who sees the wave of Bernie or Mamani

and says how do I catch this wave? They

want people who actually when they get there are gonna fight >> because even if you win the fight then just begins against the special interest are going to come after you. And if you don't have the record to stand up on

shows like Bill Maher, how are you going to have the record when you get to the Congress or the Senate or the White House? We need people who have

House? We need people who have conviction in our politics. And Bernie

Swift immigration Bernie used to be against open immigration too. Graham

Platner in Maine, Abdul, >> he used to say that illegal aliens were added into the country to displace American workers. He was right then Abu

American workers. He was right then Abu Absu Gazala right Chicago. So many I met her name there we've endorsed dozens across the country these bold young pro

progressives.

>> Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. And I think that that's where the momentum is. And

it's very clear that like the establishment Democrats are trying to lean into that momentum, not fully understanding exactly why there's so much momentum or so much grassroots uh backing for a lot of these candidates

and and simply trying to lean into that with aesthetic postures instead of uh demanding more instead of openly calling out what Israel has done as genocide, openly saying that Israel is an

apartheid state and and uh demanding change uh in or or uh reconsidering the way that we have aligned with Israel.

uh in perpetuity. They just simply say, "Oh, I'm not taking any AP pack money."

And that's wishy-washy and it's marginal. It's still good that it's like

marginal. It's still good that it's like moving the needle in the appropriate direction, but it's a too little too late. And I think that like you've uh

late. And I think that like you've uh like you've said over and over again, Democrats need to stop being afraid of leading. Um listen, we have a state

leading. Um listen, we have a state watching legal and illegal being right just too early.

>> I think it's dishonest and you know, you get punished for it endlessly. uh

whether it be my opinions on Israel, whether it be my opinions on on the dem how the Democrats mishandled immigration u and the conversation around the immigration, this is something that I was very critical on the Biden

administration on uh from April 2021 when they uh when they first noticed that uh a lot of people were uh getting agitated uh and uh and and they thought,

"Oh, if we just don't address this at all, if we don't do anything uh that that Joe Biden ran on in 2020 and defeated Donald Trump on the first 100 days, of immigration was this comprehensive agenda leaning into

amnesty and things of that nature. But

they saw an overwhelming amount of people come to the border uh as as usually the case whenever there is a non-Republican in charge. They didn't

know how to handle it. Um and this issue uh got completely out of control. At the

time I said they should have prosecuted Governor Greg Abbott for trafficking human beings across state lines in a Jonathan.

>> Yeah. in a deliberate in a deliberate effort to gum up the works, the the the already established uh the the immigration processing was made even

more difficult deliberately without even corresponding with the other states and officials from other states in an attempt >> to to exhaust their funds and exhaust their resources and it was very

successful. The very fact that Ronda

successful. The very fact that Ronda Santis and Greg Abbott were able to do this without any scrutiny whatsoever is incredible is insane to me. what I

missed that >> Democrats should have punished them and then they should have reappropriated funds adequately to ensure that one this doesn't happen again and two the immigrants that were already uh being

processed now in places like New York, Rhode Island and and many other places actually had the the the localities there actually had the proper funds to make sure that they were integrated uh

expeditiously and could work and and and not be this like illegal strain on on the resources that they had >> finally Um, very frustrating to see this all the

time. Uh, but, uh, one last question I

time. Uh, but, uh, one last question I have for you because we already was in state lines.

>> Fun.

>> Yeah. Um, do

>> I don't know how you do this hours straight.

>> I I do it for, you know, 10 hours, eight hours. Uh,

hours. Uh, >> 10 He does not stream for 10 hours. I'm

a very stubborn person. I've been

watching some of the comments and you got a very uh educated and informed uh community and I you know they're the ones >> probably some of my viewers are in this chat are the ones who are finally

>> I mean we're going to change they're nerds that's why it's Saturday afternoon and they're sitting in here uh listening to me talk to a congress person. They're

not I wouldn't say they're like the the average losers American politics appreciator >> they're the activists. They're the ones who will be knocking on doors. They'll

be on social media. They look we have a chance historic chance finally to build a progressive movement in this country had finished the job that Bernie Sanders did. I endorsed him in 2016. I co-chared

did. I endorsed him in 2016. I co-chared

when Nina Turner and Ben Cohen uh his campaign in 2020. I was one of his national co-chairs and we should have won. The country would be a different

won. The country would be a different place. We wouldn't have had the mess in

place. We wouldn't have had the mess in Gaza. We didn't. We came close. We can

Gaza. We didn't. We came close. We can

finish the job. I don't know if you came close in 28 and build an FDR-like progressive coalition. And that's going

progressive coalition. And that's going to happen because of people uh here. I

mean that's it's this is the energy of the movement and with Zoran winning it shows anything is possible. The energy

is on our side.

>> Yeah. No, absolutely. Um do you fear that um that foreign governments may take action against you beyond uh simply trying to you and and dumping loads of

funds into your office.

>> If you had to guess. Well, look, they're going after me both because of the Epstein issue and because of my uh votes and and and comments on Gaza. Uh, you

know, and the the tech some of the tech billionaires don't like me these days because I said that we should be for the workers and not just have AI put data centers everywhere uh when it's

increasing electricity costs and using water costs. And I said that the tech

water costs. And I said that the tech companies need to be paying for that and need to have renewable energy and need to have water use standards. And so some people started coming after me there. Uh

and so I I have taken on some powerful uh interests. But uh you know

uh interests. But uh you know >> killing PC gaming. Yeah. Can we talk about the RAM cost in jail as part of Gandhi's independence movement? You

know, literally in jail. He was uh jailed twice. Uh, and the challenges as

jailed twice. Uh, and the challenges as an American politician pale in comparison to that. So when I think about, you know, what risks I'm taking,

right? What issues I'm fighting for, I

right? What issues I'm fighting for, I think nothing I do. He's playing on a PV server.

>> Courage that my grandfather had. And by

that I don't just mean my grandfather. I

mean all of the people who have sacrificed for a PE server. People who

fought in World War II and scaled the cliffs of Normandy. Whether they were people who were beaten in the Edmond Pettis Bridge, whether they were part of decolonizing movements around the world, we have a chance to do a beautiful thing

in America to build a truly multi-racial democracy of equality and dignity of every human being to move beyond a colonizers model of the world to have a world that recognizes the dignity.

>> I think we should have borders personally and every person.

>> Yeah, I think we should have borders here. That's what we thinkers privilege

here. That's what we thinkers privilege to be in the United States of America to have that chance. Yeah, it's I always say like look, while white supremacy is

is definitely uh a a resilient galvanizing factor for many Americans, like Americans are much much more open-minded uh about diversity than even

our European counterparts are.

>> Yeah, we're better than precisely the reason why in spite of Donald Trump's popularity, uh in spite of how much he hammered on uh you know, undocumented migrants doing like all these crimes and

whatnot, which is you know, pure manufactured hysteria, manufactured outrage that Americans by and large are very inconsistent in the way that they see the world. Uh and and there's a sea

of contradictions there for the average American politics understander, the median voter. Uh and that's precisely

median voter. Uh and that's precisely the reason why they uh the very same people, if you were to ask them, the very same people that were like, you know, holding up even the mass deportation, deport them all placards at the Trump uh rallies, if you were to ask

them like, do you think an immigrant that's been here for 10 years that has done no crimes whatsoever should have amnesty uh after you know background checks and illegal alien all

collectively say absolutely and I'm not making this up I'm not making up a hypothetical person there's evidence to suggest you know how this is reality because that's what the polls say well

it's not just it is the polls I'm sure >> because I grew up in Bucks County 99% white Krishna I was one of the only Indian Hindu kids Indian-American Hindu

kids on the And I used to play little league baseball. Yeah. I couldn't hit.

league baseball. Yeah. I couldn't hit.

They used to put me ninth. When I used to go up to hit, they used to say, "Watch the bunt." I was so bad at at hitting.

>> But I knew those folks >> and I knew they were decent and kind and welcoming and that they wanted me and my family to fit in. They didn't understand

because you were a legal immigrant. It

was a good community. We are a decent and good people that has been exploited by politicians or protecting an Epstein class. for protecting

class. for protecting >> and business owners who import illegal aliens, >> immigrants, blaming foreign countries, blaming LGBT and trans people because

they don't want to deal with the wealth and the power that is shafting folks.

And if we come in with truth, if we come in with honesty, and if we say, "Look, we multi-racial democracy that can respect each other and we are sick of having our

money go to Argentina or Netanyahu.

We're sick of the wars in Iraq or Venezuela or Libya. We want Medicare for all. We want $10 a day child care. We

all. We want $10 a day child care. We

want a tax $10 a day childare in Rose District. We want child care,

District. We want child care, healthcare, education for every American. Then I think we can inspire

American. Then I think we can inspire this country. And I I call it economic

this country. And I I call it economic patriotism, but I believe it's a patriotic vision of what America is supposed to be, of how you can have an Indian-American of Hindu faith talking to someone of Muslim faith on a Saturday

afternoon and inspiring a nation. Let's

be the best >> in a room filled with Christmas decorations >> with Christmas. There you go.

>> But no, absolutely. It's u what you're describing is is coming u fairly close to class first politics in general. This

doesn't mean that you write off um you know uh other marginalized identities or other marginalized groups uh in this in this uh bargain but it's more so to bring it's more so to bring voters from

the other side >> they want 15 minimum wage and I think that in the absence of Democrats engaging in this sort of class first politics they often simply uh engage in this

>> aesthetic posture towards like protecting migrants or protecting trans people and they're the first to to write them off as we saw in the aftermath of the last general election

>> because the the policies aren't popular.

We were just like too protective over transability. It's like they that wasn't

transability. It's like they that wasn't even a point of contention at all. You

never did. Absolutely. And the only reason why you were defined by those policies is because you were not defined by any of the policies that you wanted to put forward because because in the absence of of being defined by easy to

understand policies like the ones that you suggested, of course, your opposition is going to frame you in whichever way they want to and you're going to be and and the public is going to see you by your opposition's framing.

And that's precisely what happened.

>> Well, when Dr. King is the most eloquent on this and I've always I don't remember the exact speech but he says when the white man said well how do I feed my family they fed him Jim Crow. When the

white man said how am I going to have a voice and why should I accept my place?

They fed him Jim Crow. And what King diagnosed was that systemic racism was the answer to mass awareness massive inequality.

>> Yeah. And what we need to do is the movement that Dr. King was building with Bayard Rustin and the freedom movement that Jesse Jackson was >> identity politics distract from the classics working class, black

workingclass, Latino people wealthy or not who believe that you can have a multi-racial democracy with dignity for everyone and not just wealth concentrated in the hands of a few who

have impunity. And to get it back to

have impunity. And to get it back to Epstein, the ultimate impunity is if you feel you can rape young girls and get away.

>> That's a big one. Absolutely. Well,

thanks so much, Roana, for coming on.

>> Y Thank you.

>> And and giving us your time on this uh otherwise very busy Saturday.

>> I love it. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Merry Christmas.

>> Yeah. To you as well.

>> Yeah.

>> All right.

Okay. Here we go.

>> Well, I will say that uh you know, for Hassan definitely I I think that at the beginning he talked a lot. It would have been nice if he let Roana talk more, but other than that, I think he did a pretty

good job on the interview. And uh, you know, I hope that this is one of the issues that, you know, with the Epstein files, I think this is something that we should put aside other [ __ ] politics

for, and it's something that is that important, that that meaningful that everybody should just say, "Listen, let's focus on this. This matters a lot.

This is a Hassan W." I'm glad that he brought Roana on. I'm happy about it. I

think he did a good job with the interview and uh overall, yeah, it's uh I think that we're better off be after it than we were before. Right. And so

that's what I would say. Yeah. I mean,

again, I I try to be fair. I'm a fair guy uh one way or another. I'm trying to be a fair guy as much as possible. So,

uh why son of truth decoration, anything for Ramadan? I have no idea. And he's

for Ramadan? I have no idea. And he's

candid for DNC needs in 2028. Yeah. I

mean like I agree with a lot of what Roana is saying. Like in my opinion I think that Democrats have a massive issue with this like because in my opinion I think there's a this is a pick

one situation where you either can pick to have mass migration and unfettered immigration of third worlders without a lot of vetting or you can have really

strong social programs. I don't think that you can have both of them because if you bring in a bunch of people that aren't net positives to the economy, the amount of money that's being withdrawn

from these systems becomes too high and it falls apart. It's kind of like what's happening with social security for an example. And I think this is a reality

example. And I think this is a reality that Democrats need to address because you can't just say, "Okay, well, we're going to let in all these migrants and, you know, this is the the country of

opportunity, but we also want to have Medicare for all." Like, you have to pick one of these two things. The reason

why we used to let anybody come to America is because we didn't have 15 different social systems that micromanage how people live, right? We

didn't have food stamps. We didn't have social security. We didn't have SNAP. we

social security. We didn't have SNAP. we

didn't have all this other stuff. So

really section 8 housing. So Ger uh Germany does good social integration.

The mass is just too big. Germany does

good social integration. I mean I don't know. I've I've seen a few cars driving

know. I've I've seen a few cars driving through crowds proving that that's not really true. But who knows the whole

really true. But who knows the whole interview. And I think they also do a

interview. And I think they also do a really big disservice like Roana comes over his mother tells him to learn his speak English and learn every langu every word in English dictionary. Great

advice, you know, amazing upbringing. I

think that's what everybody would want to see. I don't think anybody whenever

to see. I don't think anybody whenever they're criticizing migration, nobody's thinking about Roana and his mother, right? I don't think that anybody thinks

right? I don't think that anybody thinks that they're talking about people that come to the country that are net negative taxpayers and that they don't learn this the the language, they don't integrate with the country. Remember

Roana left and he said, "Merry Christmas." Okay, this isn't some happy

Christmas." Okay, this isn't some happy holidays [ __ ] Like that's an American. So at the end of the day I

American. So at the end of the day I think this entire fixation around that we have to be able to distinguish between good actors and bad actors and I think it's very obvious that there are

some people who are migrants who are bad actors and there are other people who are migrants who are good actors and I think the problem is that you keep making this distinction between the two or refusing to make the distinction and

I think that you're going to be running into a pretty big problem. So yeah,

that's generally it and uh we live with them and uh we have to and uh I am I don't want Hindu Hindus here. I don't

have a problem with Hindus at all. I

mean as I've said I this is my personal experience coming from just me is that I actually think that the amount of uh I I I have met more Indian-Americans that

have been more Americanized than any other group. Like I I would say it's

other group. Like I I would say it's basically on the same level as the you know Texas Mexican with the uh you know

basically um faded jeans and like the uh Tomy Tony Romo you know jersey for the Dallas Cowboys, right? Like I feel like it's basically on that same level. This

guy is 100% America. So yeah, I mean I I don't agree with that. And I think it's also it's a matter of degree too. Like I

don't want infinite Indian migration into America. I don't want infinite

into America. I don't want infinite Chinese migration. I don't want infinite

Chinese migration. I don't want infinite Russian migration, Polish migration. I

don't want infinite migration from anywhere. But that being said, I think

anywhere. But that being said, I think that you have to bring these people in.

And if you want to have these social systems and you want to have a social safety net, like, you know, child care for $10 a day, great idea. Love the

idea. How do we pay for that? The

problem is that we have so many people that aren't paying into the system, then I feel like we're going to run out of money. the same as we are with social

money. the same as we are with social security. So that's the main concern. I

security. So that's the main concern. I

think that Democrats have to pick one.

They have to pick social systems or they have to pick mass migration. You can't

have both. And that's the only concern I really have. The other stuff it it's

really have. The other stuff it it's disappointing because a lot of the other stuff that he's supporting and I think a lot of the other Democrats are supporting are things that I'm very much in favor with. Right. So yeah, it

matters who's compatible with your social values, societal values. I think

you're right. But I think that compatibility with societal values will be it's a lot higher. You're going to have a much higher degree of

assimilation if it's done at a slow drip. That way those people come into a

drip. That way those people come into a a group and they're not able to effectively create their own enclaves. I

find that enclaves where people don't assimilate, I don't really see that being a good thing. Now obviously people should have freedom of association but there should very clearly be a uh you

know a a a nudge in order to become part of the greater American population.

Right? That's my That's my viewpoint on