Epstein Files 2 w/ Thomas Massie

hey guys don't forget to buy my wife's amazing children's book over at amazon it's called healthy hibernation it's a book for little ones about eating healthy it's very sweet and people really love it it's been so well received it's available in hardcover and softcover and yet like I said it's up on amazon.com healthy hibernation please go grab a copy of my wonderful wife's children's book all right let's get into the show what's up what's up everybody welcome to a brand new episode of part of the problem of very very special episode that I've been very excited about for a couple of weeks now very quickly before we start the show a couple orders of business number one tonight at seven p.m. Eastern live right before this show premieres on youtube I will be debating allen dorschwitz on the around war hosted by zero hedge I am very excited to see what he possibly is going to use what his defense will possibly be at this point of the war so that should be exciting and the other big piece of information is that I will be very relevant to today's show I will be coming to Kentucky I will be that's my next stop is Louville uh Kentucky September I believe it's 17th and 18th comic Dave Smith dot com uh for tickets there they're up for sale now so go grab those all right speaking of Kentucky today on the show we have the legend uh the greatest congressman serving today who was um I've I have not been shy about expressing my admiration for him I'm so glad that he took some time to talk about everything that's going on today of course the great Thomas Massey how are you sir I am doing great and I'm excited to come to you from my congressional office because in a few days they're going to kick me into the basement in a cubicle and repaint the walls for whoever's taking this office next and I also want to congratulate you you almost said Louisville right you've got to have like you almost got it right you didn't call it Louisville or Louisville but there's got to be something stuck in your throat when you say it like you're a Louisville okay I have been the the what you see there the is progress it's a result of progress like I've been there this is like my fourth time going and every time they correct me a little bit so I improve like I started with all those versions and then I got through it I'm circling it I'm circling it okay a couple more trips by the end of this weekend I'm going to try to hang out enough that I leave there saying it the right way I'm trying to try to absorb the local dialect you do it is you know it's it's an amazing time that we're we're living through right now you know like as I mentioned I have a debate tonight on the war in Iran I've done a lot of these public debates over over the last few years on the internet this is kind of the new thing this is one of the first ones where I've ever been going into it and I'm like I don't even understand what is the possible defense here you know I got in an argument with the producer of the Stephen Crowder show the other day on on yesterday on Twitter and he was saying to me oh Dave you're wrong to say that Donald Trump broke a campaign promise you know he had always said Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons and I was like yeah but you're kind of leaving out the part where they explicitly ran on no new wars and every single surrogate said there would be no new wars and in fact top surrogate said don't vote for Kamala Harris because you might get war in Iran as Trump himself had warned with Obama you know so anyway from your perspective as somebody who was correctly at this point undeniably against the 12-day war against this war that we now find ourselves in just this disaster once it like to be in this moment where your go is like it's almost like exactly guys and this is why we warn Jeff and look where we are man I would love to be in on that debate I'm not inviting myself but I want to give you a few few things well first of all with the 12-day war the beat you know the one that was just a light touch in the beginning I actually wrote a war powers resolution to stop that one but they didn't bring it up we couldn't bring it up in that period of time so when he did the second war they just used the one that I had written for the first one because it was already in the hopper and a had already matured look there's something called the 1973 I think it is might be 74 war powers resolution or war powers act it was actually meant to him in the president now they use it to say oh this gives us extra authority to start a war without congress but it has to be an emergency with like America in jeopardy before you can exercise that clause of the 1973 war powers resolution but there's also a section 5b and 5c of that act that was passed by the way Nixon here's how you know it was meant to him in the president Nixon vetoed it and they overrode his veto I think that's the history on it he certainly didn't want it because he didn't feel like it was giving the president more authority it was supposed to give them less authority well there's two sections in there one of them they argue is constitutionally dead now in light of a 1983 INS versus Chauda decision it's the spring court where they say you can't have a legislative veto but the the spring court has never ruled on this 1973 war powers act and here's so there's two sections in there one of which the White House is claiming it's unconstitutional it's on the books it's a law but they're not going to follow it because they don't think they have to follow it and that's the one that says if the House in the Senate passed a concurrent resolution that says get out of this military action or war or you know whatever you want to call it then the president has to withdraw we did that and the it's the first time in history the House in the Senate have passed the same exact language so it qualifies under that law as a concurrent resolution that's supposed to bind the White House they're supposed to withdraw right now so they've violated that but they're saying they don't have to bathe the law because they think it's unconstitutional ever even though it's never been ruled unconstitutional now there's another provision of that law one of these is 5b the others 5c that says you can only go 90 days so let's say you're exercising the authority under that law that says if America is in danger imminent threat of danger to America you can go 60 days in a military action by the way without congressional authorization in the Gulf War which was the first war in Iraq in the war in Afghanistan and in the second war in Iraq in all three instances the president came to Congress and got authorization for that it wasn't a full you know declaration of war but it was an authorization that for all intensive purposes satisfied that law so that those administrations although they were ill advised that and want listen and reckless they did get authority from Congress the president's not done that in this case so he had 60 days to to do his thing and then there's a 30 day grace period so there's 90 days well what happened on the 91st day they said oh this war is over we're done we won and then it wasn't until like the 92nd day they started another war and and now every time they hit Iran they say it's a different war so the president may actually be right when he says we've won 12 times because he started 12 wars according to their legal theory but here's what that tells me the and by the way they had casualties statistics that they had to revise down they were attributing to the Iran war I suspect and you know we went from like 14 casualties to 18 casualties my numbers aren't you know debts my numbers aren't exactly right probably but they they rolled the number back down because they said whoops if we count all these casualties toward that initial war we're admitting that this is one continuous war and by the way the president isn't using these legal terms of art he knows it's all one big giant war but his lawyers know they're in trouble they're in front of their skis and they're legally legal peril because they are acknowledging the validity of this law and then they are using lawyer speak to to try to get around it so those are a couple things I would say about this war from a legal standpoint yeah no no question and would you say because wasn't it really it's like I'm I agree with everything you just said and then I think also like clearly by the spirit of the law I mean the law of the land is the constitution and the Congress is supposed to declare war and certainly when when it's wars that are so obviously wars of choice that these are wars that you would need congressional but by any even a liberal reading of the constitution but your point there is still a big difference between at least George W Bush came and got some type of approval from Congress but really it was Obama I think who started the trend of like now essentially Obama said I'm just going to use the approval that Bush got and say that that also applies to not only me continuing the war in Iraq which if you actually read the the AUMF it was against Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq so like it didn't make any sense that we could still use that to continue but he used that to justify back in al-Qaeda in Libya and back in al-Qaeda in Syria and all these things and so I guess by the time we got to Donald Trump you know Obama had already set the precedent of I could just go to war with Libya and announce it from out of the the country via email or or whatever, like it doesn't, and so by the time we got to Trump, he just decided there's no, there's no even pretense of the skeleton of a constitutional Republican framework. We just live under emperor wars, the King can go whenever he wants. >> Correct, this path is well-trodden over our constitution, but I would also point this out. I was in Congress in 2013 when Obama and John Kerry said that Bashar al-Assad crossed the red line, and we were going to go to war with Syria, we were going to deploy troops there and attack them like, you know, like we're doing in Iran now. And Obama, I don't want to give him credit here, maybe it's just because he wanted to put Congress on the spot, but he said, I'm going to Congress to get an authorization to use military force in Syria. And that was in the summer, I remember this very clearly, because I got 100 calls a day, and it's the most phone calls I've ever gotten in my congressional office before or since per day, from actual constituents, not people on the left coast that, you know, love to call my office or people from New York. A hundred constituents a day were calling, saying, don't go to this, don't authorize this war in Syria. And quietly, John Bainer and Nancy Pelosi just withdrew that measure from consideration and we never voted on it. Now, here's why Obama doesn't get any credit for being constitutional. They went and spent a billion dollars on a secret war in Syria, okay, according, I got to say this, according to the New York Times. >> Yeah, well, there's been, look, there's been a bunch of work written by that. They actually just at the Libertarian Institute, if anyone wants to check that out, they just published a book this last year about blanking on the name, oh, I'm so sorry, I'm blanking on the name, but they just published, Natalie, if you don't mind pulling that up, the Libertarian Institute, they just published a book on the origins of the Syrian war. I read it last year was fantastic, but on the CIA backing, what you're talking about when Obama started putting a billion dollars a year in at the beginning to back the anti-Assad rebels, which they found out very quickly and knew who the anti-Assad rebels were. It didn't take a genius to find out who the radical Sunis over in that region were. >> Right. And, and by the way, at the time I went on CNN and had the audacity to challenge this narrative that Assad was using chemical weapons on his own people, the CNN anchor, I think it was Kate Baudin-Baudin or something, was a gas. You could go back and find the look on her face, where I said, no, I don't believe you use chemical weapons on his own people, because that is the one thing that would justify us getting into that war, and he doesn't want us in the war. I think it's a false flag or just a made up allegation. And by the way, there was an MIT professor who said the same thing, you know, they're showing you rain barrels and saying these are rocket holes and things like that. And people, you know, there were carbon dioxide and high concentrations, that other things that could have caused the illnesses and some deaths that happened there. Anyways, I think I was, I was later proven to be right, but nobody, you know, just quietly they went on. >> That's right, that's right, no, I remember it very well, and it made no sense at all at the time, because Donald Trump had already announced that we were going to withdraw troops from Syria. The Civil War was coming to an end. So essentially, Bashar al-Assad had been fighting for his life to not go down like Momar Qaddafi for years and years and years, and had conducted a very bloody war. I mean, he was certainly guilty of war crimes as well, but conducted this huge effort to save his own life. And then when he's won, he would do the one thing that would guarantee that the Americans wouldn't leave. It just made no sense. And then of course, after you came out and took that stand, there were a couple whistleblowers at the OPCW who came out and said, yep, they suppressed a bunch of information that made it look like this was a chemical attack launched by Bashar al-Assad. It was in a rebel controlled area. And there was lots of evidence to suggest that it wasn't an attack from the sky. So it just didn't add up, Aaron Matey over at the nation did some excellent reporting on this. Highly recommend that. So yeah, it's always be skeptical when they come up with this scenario that goes, wait, really? So you're telling me that they did the one thing that would be completely only in the interest of the military industrial complex? Yeah. That's convenient. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show. Which is Body Brain Coffee. If you're already drinking coffee every morning, you might as well make that cup work harder for you. Body Brain Coffee is amazing. I've been drinking it for months and telling you about it. But now the creamer is here and it takes that regular coffee or even better body brain coffee and turns it into a smooth, creamy, super functioning cup of coffee that actually tastes great. It's packed with functional ingredients like C8, MCT, oil for a quick source of energy, hard accepts for performance and endurance support, Rhodiola for stress, fatigue and mental performance and collagen to support skin and connective tissues, plus Ceylon sentiment. And unlike a lot of creamers out there, body brain creamer is sugar free, dairy free with a coconut milk base that gives your coffee that's smooth, rich creaminess. You actually want from a creamer, but the real move is stacking it with body brain coffee. That's what I do. I have a cup every day of body brain coffee with the creamer. I feel better than I ever have. No handful of pills, no sludge from a mushroom, no injections, no supplements, none of that. Just a smooth, delicious, creamy cup of coffee packed with ingredients designed to support your daily routine. So please go support this company as I've told you. It's the brainchild of Lewis Jay Gomez, the guy who convinced me to start standup and podcasting bodybraincoffee.com is where you go. The promo code is Dave 20 for 20% off your order. One more time, bodybraincoffee.com promo code Dave 20 for 20% off. All right. Let's get back into the show. But while we're talking about the AOMFs, the other crazy thing that's happened that people just kind of went on and ignored, the most expensive, lavish, biggest U.S. embassy on the planet is in Iraq. And it's because they knew if they planted that there, we would never leave because then you would have the images of it being overrun by rebels or whatever, savages, overtaking a U.S. embassy with the flag being burned and taken down. So they planted the biggest, most expensive embassy, U.S. embassy in the world in Iraq as a sign that we're never leaving. And then they use the Iraq AOMF to kill Soleimani and say that, well, there's a war in Iraq and this AOMF covers that, even though we're killing somebody from another country. >> Yeah, that's right, as we got to, and even, I mean, just the fact that we got to kill the, we overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Sunni bathist, and put into power the Shiite militias who were most closely linked with Iran. We hand the bagged head to Tehran and then we sit here and go, well, that's why we have to kill the leader of this Shiite militia or whatever, the Iranian general. I wanted to, so another piece of information that I found kind of interesting. So of course, famously, when you were, let's just say, unseated by the Israel lobby in your congressional district, a district that you had won over and over and over again with wide, wide majorities. And in fact, even I had looked back over the numbers recently, even in 2020, when you committed the heinous crime of being good on the ridiculous spending bills that led to so much of the price inflation that has just destroyed American families over the last five years. There was one congressman, I'm sorry, let the record show, there was one congressman who stood up and demanded a vote and railed against this and said, this is insane while the president was bragging about how it's the biggest bill ever. Donald Trump turned over on you over this in 2020, sent his supporters to attack you, attack you in very vicious ways. You won your primary with 82% of the votes that year, 81% excuse me. 81% and he said, I should be thrown out of the GOP. Yeah, and it was a serious opponent. He checked the boxes, he wasn't like some bad fly. He was actually the attorney for Nicholas Sandman, who was somewhat of a celebrity and a hero in my district. He was the one who was a pro-life protester who had the Native American bang in the drum and he's face and he sat there without responding. Anyway, yeah, that was a live fire exercise and I got 81%. By the way, a year before I lost this primary here in Kentucky, my fav unfaves, we poll these things. It was 62-12, okay. That means if you say, are you very favourable, somewhat favourable and add those two numbers and say, are you somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable, add those two numbers. The ratio of those two added numbers was 62-12 in the district. My pollsters are like, oh my gosh, we don't see these kind of numbers anywhere in any district. And then what happened is for nine months, so they started, I believe in June, June, almost a full year before the primary, they started running negative ads non-stop, like $2 million of ads 10 months before my primary. And obviously, I didn't have the money. Normally I have about $200,000 in my campaign account. That's by war chest. So I have like $200,000 in my campaign account. They didn't even have an opponent to run against me. There was nobody filed and it was the Israeli lobby. It was Miriam Adelston's money. They started spending at 10 months, maybe 11 months before my primary. And as we pulled, we watched my fame unfaith, just go down, down, down and tell it flipped. When you're in the incumbent and you go underwater, and that was their whole goal, just to open up with the belt fed machine gun of lies and keep suppressive fire, 'cause you can't do that overnight either. You can't pounce on somebody six weeks before the election and change the outcome. And so it was a concerted effort, but that's okay. I've said this privately, I'll say it for the first time here, I think publicly, you know, I'm a widower. I would marry to my high school sweetheart for 31 years. We were together 33 years. And she's in heaven. And she built superconductors in high school, right? On her farm, she could do differential equations. If there's anybody, God lets advise on outcomes on earth when they get to heaven, I think it would be my wife. And I'm convinced she was instrumental in getting me out of Congress, because it's the best thing for my soul. So I have no animosity toward the liars and the cheats and the people who spent $30 million of their money to take me out. I think they were just her tools to save me from this, 'cause look, Dave, I'm a focused, I'm like a, you know, I'm an engineer by training. I have attention focused disorder. I will focus on problems and keep working on them way past the time when, you know, most people would give up. I would be up here stroking out like McConnell in 20 years if they hadn't beat me. - I've been, sir, I've been informed he's absolutely fine. And I see no reason not to, I see no reason to suspect that they would be hiding anything. Well, that's, he's inspired a term limit bill that I may introduce before I leave. I'm gonna call it three strokes and you're out. (laughing) - Federman's on deck. - It's up, that's not bad. Federman's on deck, you got one left, buddy. You're pushing it. Well, listen, that's a very beautiful thought. I just, it kind of made me feel bad, 'cause I was like, I think maybe your wife is in heaven and she's trying to be your guardian angel and get you out of Congress. And then me and everybody I know are just trying to get you to do something even harder in another year. - Well, this is my apologize for that. - She knew that would happen. She knew I would fight my guts out too to stay here, which I did. I did everything I could. - No, you did. Well, look, I will say one of the things, first of all, I really appreciate it. Even in the spirit of what you just said right there, I said this publicly on the show, I said this privately to a lot of people that there was something I really just loved about the spirit of your speech that you gave after it. It was like, I think you, yeah, you did fight hard, you accepted what happened. And I think part of what, there was something kind of beautiful about it. And one of the things that was beautiful, it's like these things in life, it's kind of a double edged sword. It definitely stung that they were able to do that. It hurt to find out some kind of painful truths, which is that, hey, man, there still are a lot of boomers, you know, in a lot of these districts, they still are only getting their news from Fox News. They are hearing from Mark Levin and they're simply not hearing the other side of the story. And everyone who does hear the other side of the story gets convinced by that, but one of the things, so it was like, okay, that kind of sucks. It turns out money still matters. But the Israel lobby pumping in $30 plus million and Fox News having a blackout like the Murdoch's and they'd all still have some power. - Yeah. - But man, when you look at the numbers of the breakdown by age, like this was, it was unbelievable to see. It had, it literally, I'm not exaggerating when I say, it only worked on the boomers. It works on nobody younger than that. Now because of that name, boomers understand there are a lot of them. That is the main thing that kind of characterizes that generation. But whatever you feel about it, there's becoming less and less of them over the years. And it was unbelievable, man, 50 and under. Everybody's with you, 40 and under. It was like the numbers were like insane. And then 30 and under, I don't even think it registers on the families like 90 plus percent. And there was something about that to me, man, that was so like, I don't care what side of the issue you're on. If you're telling me, who would I rather take? Everyone over 55 or everyone under 55? Obviously, if you're banking on the future, you want everybody under. And so that was just extremely encouraging to me. And I'm sure it was for you too. - Yeah, I mean, the future is with us. But it also, you know, I'm an inventor. I've got 30 patents. And this election gave me an idea for another invention. The boomers watch Fox in their living room and in their kitchen. I'm going to invent a CPAP machine that you can watch Fox on. And I'm telling you, I'll sell millions of 'em. - But then we got to get it like, like maybe it'll break into like a podcast every now and then or something like that. I do say to listen, man, I do say like, I think this is something I try to tell the people out there. There is a little bit of an obligation here on us where we got this new thing where like, we have a new decentralized media where we're outside of the propaganda machine. You got, if you got a boomer in your life who's a good person, try to work on them if you can. Let them hear the other side of this because I'm telling you, a lot of what this is is that people just, you know, if you only hear from, say, Mark Levin or something like that. And he's telling you, hey, this Thomas Massey guy has lost his mind. You know how you used to like him, I know, but now he's become crazy and he's off on this. It's fairly easy for someone to just go like, oh, wow, I didn't realize Thomas Massey. And then they see a clip out of context. Then they see an AI-generated video and they don't even understand what AI is. You know, I was saying to my mother and what my wife's mother the other day. She's a boomer, you know, and I just use the term CGI about a movie and she went, what's that? And I went, no, you know, CGI. Like when it's fake in the movie, like what you see isn't really happening there. Forget AI. She had never even heard of the term CGI. They just are unaware of this stuff, you know? - When you say you're using AI in rural Kentucky, it means you're artificially inseminating your cows. Like that's what AI means in rural Kentucky. And so when you throw up the words AI or even the whole word, you know, artificial intelligence, that could also be the name of the super pack. It's like in the same font. And I had older people come up to me at my rallies. These were supporters and they said, I don't care if you went on a date with AOC and Ilhan Omar, you've got the most conservative voting record. I'm still gonna vote for you, but it really bothers my neighbor. And I've, this, I literally had a woman tell me that. I was like, ma'am, the commercials are not real. And she looked at me like, really? How did they, how did they get that video of you checking into the hotel with them and at the restaurants? And I'm like, I tried to explain it to her and she says, wow, well, now I'll go tell my neighbor because she said she's not voting for you 'cause she saw that video, but I was gonna vote for you anyway. And that's when I knew it worked. I honestly, when I saw it, I thought it would backfire. I thought this is so ridiculous that it would backfire. It makes me angry because keep in mind it, and I hope everyone keeps in mind it's not that lady's fault. Like that's not on her. It's on them and being manipulative. It's not a reasonable expectation to, and believe me, I give the boomers a lot of crap as a generation, but it is an unreasonable expectation that like a 73 year old is supposed to figure out that oh, wait, you can generate images now that look just lifelike and what like there's, it is a totally reasonable expectation that if I saw a picture of someone in a political ad, but that's a real picture. They wouldn't be allowed to show that to me if it wasn't a real picture. It's just, anyway, it's something to keep in mind that, oh, no, bless you. It's something to keep in mind that a lot of those people really have been manipulated by all of this. - All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Hexclad. I don't know about you guys, but one of my favorite parts of the summer is grilling. I love to do it. I do it as much as I can every single summer, but the grilling season doesn't end at the end of summer, okay? The kids might be back in school, but we still got at least a couple more months of grilling, and it's still worth it to check out the Hexclad's barbecue collection if you have not already. Hexclad has brought their hybrid technology outdoors this year with products specifically designed to make grilling easier, especially when you're cooking foods that normally don't cooperate on the traditional grill. The Hexclad barbecue pan combines the searing power of stainless steel, the durability of cast iron, and the convenience of nonstick all in one versatile grilling pan. The perforated design lets heat and smoke flow through, so vegetables, seafood, fish, and kebabs still get that smoky grilled flavor without falling through the grates. They've also launched their new barbecue grill topper, which gives you even more control when cooking delicate foods, veggies, seafood, or multiple portions at once. And if you're looking for the complete setup, Hexclad offers the barbeque button. Dandel featuring the barbecue grill pan, hybrid cutting board, and the carving set. So you have everything you need to grill, prep, carve, and serve without constantly running back and forth to the kitchen, which as you guys know, can, can get annoying. So for a limited time, our listeners can get 10% off your order with our exclusive link. Just head over to hexclad.com/problem. Once again, that's hexclad.com/problem for 10% off. All right. To clear the air and I swear, I swear this is true. I really did this. I went to AOC and asked if she had seen the video and she laughed and said, yes. And I said, I just want you to know, I would never go on a three-way date with Ilhan Omar. That's the way that's the way that's the way that's the way that's going to be. And she thought it was funny. So I'm not being censored today in Congress. She laughed. Very good. She laughed. It's a risky move. You can a joke with AOC, sir, but if she likes it, if she laughs, then it's good. But if not, then you're a me too, something predator. So that's good to know. So I wanted to, I'm sorry, there's one more point I wanted to make on the Iran stuff before moving on. Oh, it's whatever. Let's move on to Epstein, a little bit here. So I want to talk about the Epstein files, part two, Epstein files transparency act two. And maybe even a bit about the first one. Let me start here knowing as you do know very well that the Dow Jones is currently over 30,000. Why are you doing this, Matt? Like, who cares about child sex trafficking when you're an environment? Now, if we were at 29,000, I could understand this. And yet, even, even here, I'm sorry, I just saw that video was going viral again today. I did. What are the greatest testimonies? The auto team version of it. Oh, my God. Just because many glorious memes, I was there. I was in that hearing, right? She was in front of me when that all happened. I tried to ask her serious questions about with, you know, they had redacted Leslie Wexner's name and picture and, you know, they protested, oh, well, he appears, you know, several hundred times in the files and we didn't redact his name on purpose. I said, yes, but this is the FBI document that says he's a co-conspirator in a child sex trafficking case. That is the one place where you redacted his name. So I asked Pam Bondy, what I thought was an obvious question after I forced him to unredact it through public humiliation, was who redacted this? Like they didn't take a five-gallon buck at a sharpies and a bunch of interns and throw them in a room with a bunch of documents, right? This is all done on a computer by people who have limited access. They're tracking me when I go over to the DOJ. They've got a unique log in for me. They know every, one of those files I've looked at, they know every redaction, I've tried to unredact while I'm over there. So they know everybody who redacted everything. That would be the question if Jim Jordan really cared about what is going on. We would have that answer tomorrow. Which person at DOJ redacted that? Because it could be a lowest learner type, she's the one sort of famous middle management at IRS who targeted the Tea Party on the 501(c)(3) application and claims to be a free agent that she was self-directed when she was doing these things. There could be somebody that's self-directed at DOJ who's doing nefarious things in there. Does nobody care? And I know they track these things. So anyways, I did ask Pambondia a serious question. So let me talk about the first bill and the second bill. The first bill caused the release of three million files. And a lot of things are known that were not known. And if I hadn't been here in Congress, it would have absolutely never happened. I'm not taking full credit. There were three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert, Nancy Mase, all three of them have paid a huge price. Like Vito, Lauren Bobert's water bill that would bring water to arid parts of Colorado. Just out of spite, right? For that. Nancy Mase could have won her governor's race. She could have possibly have gotten the Trump endorsement. She forewent that by co-signing this. And Marjorie Taylor Greene's no longer in Congress. This was the breaking point for Trump. He was like- Because her family threatened her kids. Yeah. And Trump wanted it when he said, you're no longer my supporters. He was also talking about his biggest supporter, Marjorie Taylor Greene. They all paid a tremendous price. But this would not happen. There would not be three million files. And it took so many miracles, honestly, for me to get this done, for this to happen. But it makes me more spiritual to the path that I took and the improbability at four or five points in that path, where it was like a hundred to one. And I won. It's like I won the lottery four times in a row on certain things that had to happen to get this done. So I got it done. But then everybody's like Monday morning, quarterbacking the bill and saying, well, you should have done this. You should have done that. You could have done this, why didn't you give the standing to Congress or the victims or whatever. I have two answers to that. Number one, we wrote the bill in one day, okay? From the moment at which I realized it was possible and conceived of how I can get it done. To when we got it in the hopper was less than 24 hours. And we did not consult anybody, frankly. We did this all on our own here in my office. I tell people the Epstein Files Transparency Act is probably the only bill that's ever passed Congress without being touched by a lobbyist or one of the permanent staff here in Washington, D.C., which I call the deep Congress. We literally got this done written and put in the hopper before anybody knew it was coming. And that was part of the element of getting this done was the element of surprise, which I had to maintain. And so that's the first thing. We didn't have a lot of time to write it. We wrote it all by ourselves. And boy, it actually worked pretty well. And then people say, why didn't you do this or that or this? Well, we threaded a needle on this thing. If it had been any more comprehensive, it might have gotten choked down at some point with some objection. I had to get every Democrat to agree to this. And some of those Democrats are, honestly, Neocon, police state, when they're in the majority, they chair the Intel Committee. They chair the armed services committee. Trust me, those people were worried about the Epstein Files, those Democrats. And I still got them to do it. So it was, I think the biggest thing we could do and still get it passed with all of these contingencies. But here's what we've realized with the benefit of hindsight. And also with the momentum on our side, I worked with the attorneys for the survivors. I worked with the attorney general from the state of New Mexico and other attorneys who have been involved in this case and cases like these. And we perfected the first bill, I never anticipated, by the way, that the chief law enforcement officer, the United States, would not enforce a law that was passed by both Chambers of Congress and signed by the president. But that's where we are. Pan Bonnie and Todd Blanche are not enforcing the law. So here's what we do. Can I just, just before I'm sorry to interrupt, but before we go into the second one, because I think that's really worth accentuating for a little bit here. So we got three million documents. Of course, there are, as you pointed out, they're heavily redacted and we know at least has been confirmed, redacted in inappropriate illegal ways, at least a few times, where they're not supposed to be. There's more details that you've done a lot of interviews on this, where even when you go to the unredacted rooms, there's redactions there, it's this, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, because this is my understanding of it. That the law is very clear. There are like a couple of exceptions, like you can redact to protect victims and you can redact like for, for national security or something like that, right? And now there's just three million more documents that they're simply not releasing, that are completely in violation of the law. There's essentially no defense, even like I haven't even seen an argument offered as to why it is legal for them to keep that correct me if I'm wrong again. So there's no showing us the other three million. It's a very low key, they have actually, they've covered their ass, okay? They would not tell you there were three million other documents, if, unless they thought not disclosing that might get them in jail one day, right? That's the only reason they're telling you they're only giving you three of the six million, and they don't think you need the other three million, right? And you're correct for the most part, they haven't given any legal reason for withholding those. With one exception, they have given a very strained legal reason for why they're withholding the documents we care about the most. And the documents that they are required by law to release, which are specifically called out in the first bill. We say in the first bill, you have to release internal memos and emails and documents about your decisions. whether to prosecute and whether to investigate. Because clearly they got on the trail sometimes and then just walked away from the trail. Clearly there were DAs in New York who were urging the DOJ to investigate to prosecute some people and they were not doing it. There were decisions made and that's at the heart of this. Why did they give Epstein such a light sentence the first time? Where are those documents? Somebody discussed that somewhere. We want those documents. Why did they not continue to pursue Leslie Wechster, which they had, or Graft, Leslie Graft, who was his right hand woman, not a victim. Some of these victims were caught up in the whole thing and I'm not blaming them. But Leslie Graft was clearly one of these people who was just serving men up women on a menu from these so-called modeling agencies, right? She was in that pipeline, making that happen. But why did, and they had her listed as a co-conspirator on these documents. That's another one that they had redacted that we got unredacted, okay? Why did, where was the decision to quit pursuing that? Now, here's, they've made a low key legal argument. It's like in an informal memo, they sent to Congress, but twice I've seen them say this, and that's so they can go back and find it and cover their ass one day. They say these are protected by deliberative process privilege. Now, here's why that does not work. Deliberative process privilege is a figment of the Freedom of Information Act that they came up with to deny you certain things when you do a Freedom of Information request. You'll see some things redacted in your FOIA files and they'll have a section, a rule abbreviated, well, it's deliberative process. What they claim is they don't have to show you their homework. They just got to give you the final exam and the result of it. They don't have to show their work. But we put in the bill that you have to show us these decisions, okay? But we called it decisions, internal demos about decisions in the bill, and they're exerting deliberative process and they're saying deliberations are different from decisions. I don't know what their legal argument is that says they can assert that. I can tell you this, though, it wouldn't stand up one minute in front of a judge. Like no judge, either way, this is another concept of law that I hope everybody gets, that a new law, it doesn't have to repeal the old law. We don't have to repeal deliberative process. You could, a new law overrides the old law in every instance where the new law applies. And that is the case with the Epstein files. If you have any doubt of that, free federal judges were asked by the DOJ. I think the DOJ was hoping for a different answer, but after Epstein File Transparency Act passed and was signed into law, the DOJ went to the three federal courts and said, can you give us your material, your grand jury material and stuff like that? Hoping that they would invoke, I think it's rule 6E and say, no, you can't have that. All three judges, they went over three. All three judges says, oh, as a matter of fact, the way law works is when a new law passes, it overrides the old law. It's so rule 6E no longer applies in the context of Epstein files. And here's all the files. And the judges gave all those files to the DOJ and the head to release them. And so that's why I know their legal argument for withholding the documents we care about the most will fall flat. So, and then that's also, now we have to kind of, that would be a good pivot into the new law. - Okay, yeah, sure. Well, look, I'll just say this real quick on the old one before and then let's get to the new one. Number one, I mean, it is just, it's hard to overstate. I don't know that there's ever been a political scandal that I've ever lived through that's looked worse than this. That's just, now, I'm even saying short of like, even with the three million documents that have been released, there's still so much that is a question mark. I mean, there's so much it, like when I say, like, look, obviously, the administration just lied over and over again, they lied about their promises to be transparent. Then they lied about what they actually had. Then if you remember, there's one point where Pam Bondi claims on camera that there's hundreds of hours of Jeffery Epstein. She said it was Kitty porn and Jeffery Epstein himself with children. She made this claim once, by the way. - Dave, I want to tab that. Let me, I got to insert this. She lied to my face in her office in front of Jim Jordan and every other Republican at Judiciary Committee in front of Todd Blanche, Harmeet Dillon, Dan Bongino, who are all in the room. This was the impetus when people say, why didn't you do this sooner? 'Cause I've never been lied to my face by the attorney general. It's such a blatant manner. She told me they had a special dinner. I am on the Judiciary Committee. This is just another twist of fate. Why is a nerd from MIT? How does he get on the Judiciary Committee, right? It's because their grill is up here in DC on K Street fighting about patents. And I've got 30 patents. And in the land of the blind, the one I've man is king. So even though I don't have a legal degree, I'm the only person in Judiciary that knows what's up and down on patents, right? So that's like, how I got on the Judiciary Committee. - So she said, so what did she say to you? - He said, okay, yeah, and by the way, I tried to clear it with Jim Jordan before I asked the question on the way over. I said, Jim, I know this is like a getting to know you meeting and we're supposed to be nice in this meeting and it's just about making a personal connection with the DOJ since we have oversight of the DOJ in our committee. But I really wanna ask this question about the Epstein files 'cause she has released the binders and then there's nothing else, she's saying these. And he said, "Massie, you do you." I know better than to try to tell you what to do. So we get over there and we get done eating. It was a dinner meeting to have their own China at the DOJ with the DOJ logo on the plate. So you're literally eating off of the DOJ plate. And there's a whole cadre of Judiciary members and it's like, "Okay, it's question time." And I believe if memory serves me correct, nobody else would say anything at that moment. So I like asked the first question. I think it was the very first question. And I said, you release those binders and some files. When can we, and you said there's more coming, when can we expect to see the rest? And she goes, "Oh my goodness, it's nothing but pornography and CSAM material. And nobody would want to see it." And what do you say to that? No, show me the pornography, right? Like, obviously at that point, I couldn't have a follow-up question. But I walked away from that dinner thinking, this is not true. She just lied to me. And so that was-- - Because that's the beauty of that lie. Is that it's the perfect lie to just go, "Oh, oh, it's all child porn." 'Cause then it gets any normal person to go, "Oh, all right, well, yeah, don't show that to anyone." Then man, it's like the one thing you could say that would be like, "Oh, okay, fine." Like, yes, obviously you don't want to put that out there. But like, so this is one of the things, one of the things I would say that's been revealed from the first Epstein Files Transparency Act. One of them is that they were hiding a ton of stuff that was not what Mike Johnson said, will bring down the political order or was a threat to national security. It was simply stuff that looked really, really bad. That we kind of still don't have answers to. Stuff like his urologist emailing him, bring nine-year-olds in grape soda, huh? You know, like, what is one to do with that information other than speculate about what the hell is going on here? - All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is prize picks. Football is finally back and prize picks is bringing out their best offer yet. New users who sign up will get $150 in lineups. If you win your first $5 lineup, that's right. If you win your first $5 lineup, you get $150 in lineups and now prize picks is available nationwide. So what are you waiting for? Lock-in for kickoff because everyone and everything is on prize picks. Prize picks, if you guys don't remember, it's very easy. You just pick two to four players and then you pick more or less than their projected stats. Like pass yards, rush yards, fantasy score. So if there's a running back, you can bet on whether he's gonna get more or less than 100 rushing yards for the game. It's very easy, you don't really have to understand the game's intricacies that well. It's just gonna make watching the game more fun 'cause you got something to root for. You throw a few bucks down and if you do really understand the game, it just makes that much more fun too. And you gotta check out the 2026 NFL Stack September. PrizePix is going crazy with the deals. to start the football season, giving users a new promo every day during stack September, make sure to sign up now for guaranteed picks every Sunday, along with profit boosts and daily discounts throughout the month. So download the app today and use the promo code POTP to get $150 instantly in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup. So all you got to do is get the prize picks app, download that today and use the promo code POTP to get that $150 instantly in lineups if you win your first $5 lineup. Prize picks. Run your game. All right. Or Howard Lutnik, taking these kids to Epstein Island for lunch after he had said to camera just weeks before he was a disgusting individual and I never had anything to do with him after the first meeting or Bill Gates. Bill Gates, slipping his wife antibiotic roofies to hide some, you know, disease he caught from prostitute somewhere like Jeffrey Epstein claimed that and was using it in a draft email that he was maybe going to send to him like, again, I'm trying my best here to be open to explanations, but what exactly is the explanation for the, now the other thing I got to say that I thought and this was, look, if I'm just being completely honest here, the thing that I kind of had in my mind about Jeffrey Epstein before you ever got these files released from what I had known of him was I think essentially what a lot of people had. You were like, okay, I know some details about this. This seems really shady. It seems really shady that a guy happens to out of nowhere, get hired by a bar's father who's an intelligence guy and he gets put at this elite school Dalton when he's really not credentialized for that. And then just a few years later, he's essentially like a partner at Bayer Starns and then he's on his own. It seems very intelligency, you know, this doesn't seem organic. And then you have the, of course, what he's convicted for soliciting prostitution from an underage soliciting prostitution from a child, however you want to dress that up. And so he's convicted of that. These powerful men, he's in this nexus, they still hang out with him. I had heard that there were cameras on his property and I had heard the alleged acoustic quote about how he's intelligence. And so in my mind, what this always seemed like what I speculated as a lot of people did was like, oh, this seems almost like a massage black male ring where you're trapping people and then you're threatening them with dirt and look, he's so clearly connected to Wexner and Gzlein Maxwell's father is a massage guy. And so this just seemed to me to be the case like, oh, he's running like a massage type operation. I got to say once I looked through the files, it almost seems like something different that might be much bigger than that where I've got like, now I've got Alex Dershwitz, Les Wexner and him himself all claiming he's a representative of the Rothschilds who is like negotiating. He's the guy who's connecting the former Israeli head of defense with Peter Teal and he's the guy who's connecting Masad with the Russians. And I'm just saying, Congressman, you know, when people will say guys like Ron Paul and you, you never got anything done. You just sit there and say, no, you know, all you do is say the government should and do this next terrible thing that they do that then turns into a catastrophe. But I got to say, you know, looking at the Epstein files, I think probably what you've done here is at least already given us more of a glimpse into how power actually works at the elite level. It's a little bit more than I was taught how a bill becomes a law. You know, it turns out there's a little bit more to it than that. And I think all Americans should be indebted to you for revealing this. I don't think anybody has ever gotten a bill passed through both chambers with both leaders of both chambers and the president against the bill of their own party, right? Like, it's the path I chose is the hardest path to, if you're a squish, when you get here that give you bills, you have no idea what they are and you get them passed and you go home and you look good. But it was just something the deep state wanted anyway. This is highly irregular, but let me tell you on the intel thing, that was my hunch and still is, but I introduced five or six documents into the record before we had the Epstein files. When Cash Patel was sitting in front of me in a hearing in Judiciary, again, the fact that this nerd from MIT is able to ask Merrick Garland and Christopher Ray and Dettelbach and Cash Patel and Pam Bondy, they ruined the day. They ever let me on that committee because in five minutes, I can like show so many things. Like I showed a video to Biden's Attorney General of who was the guy saying go into the capitol or whatever. Don't even say his name because they didn't deal with you. Yeah. Anyway, yeah. Ray, yeah. I'll say it. It, look, it was clearly foaming violence there and he got off with the slap on the wrist or something. Like that's, it's, anyways, I'm the one who showed the video to Merrick Garland and said how many agents or assets of the government were president on January 6th. Like, but anyways, it's a miracle that I'm in that committee and I introduced into the record in front of Cash Patel, five pieces of evidence in the public domain that showed that Jeffrey Epstein was likely massage and CIA. Look, he had meetings with Obama CIA director like that was, that was known already. So that's, that's high level connections, man. I mean, I've tried to get meetings with Obama CIA director and I've never been able to, you know, it's like it's not that easy for just anybody to pull these meetings off. And by the way, I want to, I hate to acknowledge the trolls on the Internet, but this, this one is for them. There's not one member of Congress on the Republican side that's done 1% of what I've done. And right now, the impetus is, the, the onus, I should say is on Trump's administration. Like just admit it, he has all of the redactions. He's got the other three million files. Don't blame the one dude, this is how I know their trolls. They're blaming the one dude that got all this set into motion, right? And it's up to them now. And then as far like before we go to the second bill too, as far as like reading the names, they say, oh, those names are already out there. Yeah, they're in phone books. Are they in the Epstein files? Of course, you would expect to see names in the Epstein files of perpetrators. And I read those names on the floor. What I am telling you is I have other information that shows they are guilty. I have to protect my sources. Those people are guilty. They need to be, you know, I'll hold out a 1% chance that they're not guilty because you're innocent and tell proven guilty in this country. So, you know, that's why I say they need to be investigated and then prosecuted. But the DOJ is doing none of that. They're not doing any investigations on these individuals. So yeah, we knew those names, go look in a phone book, you can find those names. My name's in the Epstein files for trying to get the Epstein files released, right? There is new information, even though those names are findable, there is new information conveyed. And I'm doing so at risk to my health and life and well-being and financial well-being later in life to go out and call out these powerful people as being guilty and worthy of investigation and prosecution. Yeah, no, absolutely. So now, tell us about the part two bill and what is that going after? So part two is the bill I would have written with Rokana and Teresa Ledger Fernandez is also a co-sponsor. She's from New Mexico. That's an important state in this story. It's where Zora Ranch is. Epstein files Transparency Act number two includes the things that if I had a crystal ball, I would have included in the first one. But I didn't anticipate. You can't know how everything's going to turn out. Number one, it allows the attorney general in the state of New Mexico to use Epstein files in a prosecution in state courts for state crimes for which the statute of limitations has not expired. And Zora Ranch is as massive and expansive and is involved in the whole Epstein saga as much or more so than Epstein Island, okay? It's got an airstrip, Epstein's former pilot still lives there or did very recently at the edge of the ranch. It is as if they were there yesterday. I'm told they're still a painting, like a naked painting of Jelaine Maxwell on the wall that all of these books are still on the shelves. And they have gone in there, the New Mexico investigators, but something unprecedented is happening. The federal attorney general is not cooperating with the state attorney general. And this is like unprecedented. Usually it's just sort of a perfunctory, hey, can you send us these files, yeah, and they get the files within two weeks if they need some help prosecuting somebody. So this bill, I'm met personally in my office, the attorney general from New Mexico. He has been stoned. walled by Todd Blanche. And so this bill gives him unfettered access to the file so that he can prosecute crimes that happened at Zoro Ranch. Wow. So this has got real teeth on it this time. Like we're going after who we can prosecute. I love this. They'll real teeth. If you want a prosecution and you and you've given up on Trump's administration, we've got a prosecutor who is ready to go after it. Okay. And we've got a crime site that's still there. And you know, there's a lot of there there. The other thing it does is it clears up this discrepancy that the it's semantics. The attorney general is trying to say that deliberative process privilege was not pierced when if it existed at all, by the way, I don't acknowledge that. It wasn't pierced by our bill when we said that you have to release the files that show your decisions about whether to prosecute or investigate. This this an unambiguous term says that you cannot assert deliberative process privilege. So that's in the bill. That will cause the relief. And by the way, any judge would say that if you could get in front of a court. And so there's there's a third dimension to this bill. It gives standing to three categories of litigants in the courts. And by the way, and it doesn't have to be in the DC district court. This is like a very lopsided court here in DC, as you can imagine. You'd much rather you never see a good freedom ruling or justice ruling come from the DC district, right? It's always like fifth circuit, sixth circuit, or one of these districts in Texas, or Kentucky, or Ohio, or something. Never never from the ninth circuit. I think that's the one out in California that includes so many liberal areas and liberal judges. And so it gives standing to survivors, because here's another category of those three million files that are still being withholded 302 forms that the FBI must complete after they've interviewed a witness or a victim. The survivors looked in these files and they said, I don't see my file. Where's my file? I did an interview. Where is it? Or I see my file, but I need to see beyond the redactions because this was my experience. And I need to know how I was harmed a lot of time has passed. And I want to know what I said to the FBI and what they also, did they faithfully record what I told them? So those files are missing, but this would give the survivors standing in their own home courts, not they don't have to come to Mordor here to file the sue. And then it would give the attorney's general of the various states standing if Todd Blanche or the next attorney general doesn't cooperate. And it would give members of Congress standing. So I'm really interested in getting this one done before January 3rd at noon when I'm no longer a member of Congress. I mean, we should have also given former members of Congress standing, but it'll be up to the other members of Congress to use this lever into you see, this is an aspect of the law and litigation. I'm not an attorney, but I do know about this. You have to have, it's called either a private right of action or standing or cause. You have to be able either statutorily, it has to be granted to you or you have to show you been harmed in some way in order to get standing. And it's been hard to do that. There is a case that's going forward where one judge did grant standing and the attorney general is right now contesting the judge's ruling, where he's been compelled to release some of the files unredacted by the judge. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is superpower. People are always talking about getting healthier, making new years resolutions or plans for the summer to get in shape. If you really want to do something for your health, check out superpower. This is the future of how people are understanding their health. What superpower does is they send a license professional to your home or you can visit a nearby lab if you prefer. It's one simple blood draw that gives you over 100 biomarkers, which is way more than you typically get. And then their app includes detailed information on your heart, liver, thyroid, hormones, metabolism, vitamin and mineral levels, even environmental toxins. So from disease prevention to treating that annoying brain fog or simply optimizing your gym game, superpower is the most comprehensive and advanced system out there. They're going to give you recommendations based on your actual body that will benefit you the most. And because one test builds on another, you're going to get a picture over time of how your results are actually going, unlocking even more information about your body and personally telling your supplements, your gym game, your diet to what your body needs. It's really pretty incredible. And superpower used to cost around $499, but now it's just $199 for the full experience. Superpower believes every human has a 100 year potential and they're here to help you get there. So go check it out now. Your blueprint is activated with superpower. Not only did superpower reduce the price to $199, but for a limited time, our listeners can get an additional $20 off if they use the promo code problem. Just go to superpower.com and remember to use that promo code problem at checkout for an additional $20 off your membership. All right, let's get back into the show. Yeah, sometimes just the reaction to bills like this can tell you so much of what you need to know or just the reaction of federal judges like man, why the effort when this administration ran on transparency on this issue. You know, speaking of running on this issue, I would say that one of the things that I'm optimistic about in the future is that I do think that for all the flaws of a democratic system, we are coming back into another presidential election year. And so many of these issues that you're talking about here, despite the smear campaigns that may have been effective with some boomers. And certainly, if anything, just had the opposite effect with everybody younger than that. But the actual issues that you've gotten in a fight over say like not fighting other stupid wars, not having reckless physical policy that drives us as driven us up to $40 trillion in debt, transparency on the Epstein issues, these are overwhelmingly popular with super majorities of the American people. And you know, Mary-A-Madolson has a lot of money. But I mean, she can pump say $30 million or Mary-A-M and other Israel, you know, lobby organizations can pump $30 plus million into a little district in rural Kentucky. It can be really tough to pump that into a thousand different districts all across the country. In fact, I say that's impossible. Fox News could have a block out of a congressional primary. It's going to be really impossible in the age of the podcast for Fox News to block out a presidential candidate. So like, if we could get a presidential candidate who was like four transparency, who was a person with some integrity, who had some honesty, who wasn't a crazy socialist and actually believed in Americanism and free market, I just got to say, man, I think that could really take off and really like change the course of this country. I'll let anyone do you know for you. Yeah, I'm looking at it because I got a guy in my way to stop it. No, no, no, no, no, no, everyone else can do this to me, but not you, the most stupid guy in the country to do this. Listen, man, I'm just going to say a lot of people are excited about the prospect of you, maybe a Tucker Carlson, maybe some combination, maybe some stuff comes together over these next couple of years. We really try to save this country just saying just a thought thrown it out there to close the show. Look, I think I think the ground terrain has to change somewhat. I found myself shooting uphill because the money was aligned against me, the administration was aligned against me, and you know, three to one, the boomers were aligned against me because they don't have alternate news sources, but I think I think things are changing. I think there's a reason to be optimistic, not today, not in these midterms, not with these clowns I serve with, but with very few exceptions, but in the future, by the way, let me talk about the before we leave Epstein Files Transparency Act to the prospect of getting it passed. So, you know, I'm not going to lie, we caught lightning in a bottle to get the first one passed. We had the nation's attention, we organized the biggest press conferences ever in the history of Washington DC in the last, you know, two decades here on the steps of the Capitol with the survivors. It's going to be hard to recreate that, but there is the pressure of an upcoming election, and people start behaving a little more rashly as far as what their constituents want in close proximity to an election. So, we've got that going for us. We've also got some congressmen who've announced they're not coming back. We've got some congressmen who will find out in November that they're not coming back. So, the prospects for getting people who are unafraid or have nothing to lose have gone up as well. So, here's the math. We need every Democrat, just like in the first Transparency Act, and I anticipate we can get all of them almost 50 have already signed by now in less than 48 hours. And we need myself and three other Republicans. And Nancy Mace is already on board. So, really, what I need is two other Republicans. And here's what happens when you get the other two Republicans. Every other Republican wants forced to vote on it, will vote for this, okay? That's what we saw on the first one. They said it was the worst legislation in the history of the world, right? If you listen to Mike Johnson, and then he turned around and voted for it. Because it's only when you call the question, and then they have to put up or shut up, and which side do you wanna be on? Particularly if we could get this done before the election, this would be another unanimous vote in the House and the Senate. And if we don't get it done before the election, we've got more people who are lame ducks, who might be compelled after November. And if we don't do that, I'm not saying I want us to be in the minority, but I can guarantee you, the Democrats are gonna put this on the floor if they take the majority. And then the Republicans are gonna have to vote on it. And they're not gonna vote against it. They would be able to get to the president, I believe, a veto-proof majority. And, by the way, this is another funny thing. When we did the first Epstein Files Transparency Act, I did the discharge petition and on the resolution that took the language from a bill that we decided Rokana would lead and inserted it into somebody else's bill. Like this is a triple-saukel type legislative move that I did that most of my colleagues still don't even understand. But at the end of the day, what the speaker did, once I got the requisite votes to force a vote on my thing, is he just called up Rokana's bill, which was the bill we wrote together, but we decided to put my name on two things and his name on one. If you go back and look at his street, all these Republicans voted for a Rokana bill. The ones that say, "Oh my gosh, Rokana's a communist, he's working with this guy. I can't believe he would have anything to do with Rokana." They all voted for Rokana's bill. It's kind of fun to think about. So anyways, it's a real possibility that we can get this done, but I do need two Republicans. And so that's what, in addition to Nancy Mace, that's what it's gonna come down to. And Marjorie Taylor Greene's no longer here. So we need two that weren't with us the first time, but it should be easier for them. They've already voted for it once, particularly for those who aren't coming back. You cannot imagine how scared my colleagues are of Donald Trump. What they will say about him behind his back, they will grumble, they will cuss, they are pissed off, and they will do nothing to cross him or to even do something that he 10% doesn't like, 'cause they're terrified of him. - That's right. - But at the end of the day, they're safety in numbers. Once we get to the requisite votes, right? You can be forgiven for signing the discharge petition, 'cause even Mike Johnson's gonna vote for the bill most likely. - Right, right. Now, and I mean, you're right, they are a lot of them are intimidated by Trump, but they are cowardice just kind of accentuates the courage that people like you and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert and Rocana, who deserves a lot of credit for all of this too. Congressman Massey, thank you so much for taking the time. Get the chance to do this again soon. Good luck. Thank you for fighting the good fight, and we look forward to your release party, where we'll all be celebrating your freedom again soon. - I'd like an inmate put an ex on the door here, the people who take the next office are gonna have to paint over the exes in this office, because I'm counting down the hours to January 3rd at noon, but there's also 34 legislative days between now and then, and I don't want to waste any of them. Today, I'll be introducing the flock off bill, and I'll have something for everybody, every week that I'm in session. - I love that. Well, I meant to talk flock cams with you, but the time caught up next time, definitely. Absolutely. Thank you, everyone, for listening. Thanks again to the great Congressman Thomas Massey, and we will catch you guys next time. Peace. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)