truth on this issue, let's say the Epstein issue that your base and your fans really care about, but you're not allowed to tell the truth. What would you do or what would you assume that Dan Bongino would do? Well at the very least I would make some threats and I would say look here's the deal. I think we botched that Epstein rollout but if we can fix it maybe I'll stay, but if we can't fix it I don't want to be part of a fraud. And I'm going to go back to my perfect job.

Now if he quit and even if he didn't tell you all the details, so this will be hypothetical, if Bongino quits and the only public statement he makes is something like my ethics were incompatible with the job I was asked to do. Suppose that's it. No details. My ethics, my moral center was incompatible with the job I was being asked to do. So I'm going to go back to podcasting. Would he retain his audience? Because it would be a little bit like admitting that he lied but telling you that he was asked to do it and then you would be noticing that he quit his job in protest which is a very clean way to tell you that he didn't mean what he said and that he's not in favor of it. Would you then say you know what I really respect that guy because he resigned. You know we always say if you really believe that why didn't you resign? We say that all the time about other people. So if we thought that he was forced to be a little disingenuous and then you saw him quit and then he said I'm not going to give you details but you know let's be honest you probably know exactly why I quit. Now going back to my podcasting job, what would his audience do? I think they would go back, wouldn't they? I think they would say you're an honest man who got caught in a bad situation. You did the best you could. It doesn't make sense for you to stay there any longer. Glad you're back to podcasting. And then his family would say oh finally you're back to doing what you love. You're not commuting to Washington. Wouldn't this be the very best time for him to quit if he wanted to quit anyway? Do you think he wanted to quit anyway? Probably. And I'm only saying that because he left the best job you could ever have, podcasting, to go to the worst job you could ever have, which is you have to do what you're told and you can't do what you think is right. The worst.

So I don't believe he's made a decision because he probably is going to wait till the last minute to make one. But if he decided to go back to podcasting with just a general statement about why he's leaving I would fully respect that. Now I would also respect if he stayed because I don't have any negative knowledge about him at all. But I wouldn't believe anything about this story until it's really confirmed. I don't believe all the who's mad at whom and why they're mad and who thinks who botched or whatever and who's talking to who. I don't know if I believe any of that but let's watch him. So Bongino is kind of the canary in the coal mine because we just assume he's going to do whatever is the right thing and we don't know what that is because we don't know what pressure he's under or anything like that. But I do think I'd expect him to do the right thing. And given that his own personal interest would suggest that quitting kind of soon and making this the reason for quitting that might kill two birds with one stone. One bird would be he could get back to his awesome career without destroying his reputation. And the other is it would tell you exactly what was going on there. At that point you would know for sure that there's something going on with the Epstein files. So anyway we'll keep an eye on that.

I like all three of them. I like Bondi, I like Bongino, and I like Kash Patel. So I'll tell you what I'm not going to do is take sides unless some new information comes up that I've never heard. To me they all look like they're loyal Trump MAGA compatible people and I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to any of them.

Anyway Bill O'Reilly is pretty sure that the president is behind whatever happened with the Epstein file release. He thinks that the president was behind how it was handled.

According to Glenn Beck at The Blaze his team has filed a FOIA request, freedom of information request, to get all of Dan Bongino's texts and emails regarding Epstein to Pam Bondi. Now that's something you could do. Are you telling me that the Freedom of Information Act would allow any citizen to just file some paperwork and then we could see the private emails of two people who are currently in the government? Is that real? When did that become real? Has that always been real? Now I understand if people were not in government anymore or time had gone by or something or maybe it was part of a legal action or something but with the redactions. With the redactions okay so that's the catch. So as long as the government can redact anything they want, I'm just gleaning this from the comments, as long as the government has the option of redacting whatever they want then I guess the citizens can ask for whatever they want. Doesn't mean they'll get it. But interesting play. It's an interesting play.

All right. Here's some more fake news, maybe. I saw a claim on social media that Epstein gave all of his money to his brother right before he died, like two days before he died. Grok says that's not technically true but that Epstein did put all of his money in a trust. I think it was an overseas trust. US Virgin Islands. And we assume that the trust beneficiary was his only relative which was his brother. So in a way he did sign over his money to his brother but probably through the mechanism of the trust. We don't know the details. And then allegedly the brother claimed his brother's body and buried it in an unmarked grave next to his parents in Palm Beach. Unmarked grave.

So if you were Jeffrey Epstein and you wanted to fake your own death would you make sure that your body could not be examined? And would you make sure that all of your money went to a trusted person so you still had access to it after you were allegedly dead? Yeah. Now I don't have a belief that he's still alive. I have a belief that if you rule that out I don't know if we can rule it out. Can we? I'm not going to say I believe it that he's still alive. I'm just going to say if you're asking me to rule it out I don't have any basis upon which to rule it out either. It looks like coincidentally he did the very things you would do if you were trying to fake your own death and still have resources when you were done. So we'll keep an eye on that.

I saw a post on X by Patrick Byrne about John Brennan. Apparently Patrick has some inside information that says John Brennan is abroad operating from a recreated MSNBC set somewhere. And that at one point he was operating from a SCIF in Australia continuing to coordinate against Trump. So do you think that John Brennan left the country because he's worried about consequences? I don't know. Maybe. Apparently seven more people who had worked with the Jack Smith team that was working on the cases against Trump they have been let go. And I guess there were already a whole bunch of them who had been fired for the same reason that they worked with Jack Smith as part of the prosecution attempt or the attempt to lawfare Trump. And what's interesting is these are not even lawyers. They were support staff. Now does that seem like going a little too far? I can totally understand why Trump would get rid of the lawyers who were acting against him for years of course. But the support staff? Really that's going a little deep. But you know it would be fair to assume that the support staff was not pro-Trump. So maybe that's all he needs. He doesn't need a reason. So he's cutting pretty deep there.

Hillary Clinton was on Smirconish on CNN with that big old Hillary Clinton pumpkin smile and she said quote, "If social media platforms don't moderate content then we lose total control." Well I guess that's saying it directly isn't it? You could interpret that sentence two different ways. One is just that bad things will happen. The other way is exactly what she said. We will lose total control. We? Who's we? And what kind of total control are they going to lose? Did Hillary say it exactly the way she meant it? That the Democrats and her posse would lose total control of the narrative if they let social media just do what it does. Unbelievable. So yeah. And you wouldn't believe if you didn't see the video of her talking about this. She could not get the smile off her face when she talked about the need to censor people on social media. I mean she seemed so genuinely happy. It's like oh yeah we're going to lose control unless we censor the hell out of them. Yeah. Can't wait. Oh she is the personification of evil.

The US State Department, Marco Rubio I guess got 1,300 staffers as part of a big overhaul of the State Department. And when I see something like that, 1,300 people have been downsized. What were those 1,300 people doing? How can you take any organization, I mean I know the answer but it's still mind-boggling, that there were 1,300 people that according to management were unnecessary and they were all being paid. They're all commuting to work. How would you like to be one of the 1,300 when you'd been working every day for maybe years and years and then somebody says oh we just realized all that work that you did for decades probably didn't need any of it. That was my corporate experience that gave birth to Dilbert. One day I realized in my corporate jobs that if I had never existed in my job nothing would be different. Nothing about the company would be different. Nothing about the stock price. That every day I was going to work and getting paid putting all these hours in and I was completely aware that none of it made any difference to anybody and you could just take me away from history.

I think comedian Nate Bargatze he has this little joke he says that if he went back in time nothing would change. I forget his exact punchline but it was something like oh so how do you make a nuclear power plant? And he'd be like I don't really know that. That wasn't his punchline. He had a better one. But the idea was that he wouldn't be able to affect history because he doesn't know enough about even our current time. That's pretty funny.

All right. So what about this story that after lots of investigation several of the agents who were protecting Trump at the Butler Pennsylvania event where he got shot in the ear, that several of the agents were suspended. Now only for days or weeks right? Not a permanent suspension. But here's my question. How could there be so many agents who on the same day and at the same time and in the same place all of them independently were doing something worthy of suspension? What? How was that even possible? What the hell were they doing that several of them were worthy of suspension? Now if they said to me well you know one of these people should have kept the door locked or one of these people should have said make sure there's somebody on the roof or one of these people should have said hey there's a guy walking around with a rangefinder and a drone. Maybe we should stop what we're doing and check this out. Now you could easily understand how there'd be one or two people there who did something that was sketchy enough that you think they should be suspended temporarily but how could there be several? Like how could you have a handful of people who all independently did something so non-standard to their job at the same time that they all get suspended? I would love to know what their particular crimes were because it does get to the question of were they doing it intentionally. Now I doubt it was a big well-organized anything because if you're going to do an assassination like that you're not going to have a dozen people in on it. And this would assume that something like a dozen people did all the wrong things to get him killed. It doesn't feel like that would be the way anybody would do a plot to have too many people involved in it.

But anyway so as you know the border enforcement people, ICE, they raided two different cannabis farms in California on Thursday and collectively they got 300 people deta