arently are trying to back the president on that and not release them, but Democrats want it all released. And they got enough votes in the House with a few crossovers that would not surprise you. So we got Marjorie Taylor Greene voting for disclosure, I believe. Boebert voting for disclosure. And does anybody feel like arguing with either one of those?

If Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene say, you know, I've lived a certain life, I don't have to get into the details, right? I've experienced a certain life. You need to make this transparent. You know what I'm talking about, right? I feel like those two have every right to ask for maximum transparency. No matter who the victim is or no matter who gets hurt, I think they deserve maximum transparency.

Now, Thomas Massie also wants maximum transparency. So he's part of that and he's got his own drama with Trump. Trump wants to primary him not just for this, but for not voting for the same side as much as he should, according to Trump. So that's the setup. The setup is it's getting some Republicans to be mad at other Republicans. If you find a way to be mad at Boebert or MTG over this, you should check your work. You have to let them just experience this and act on it the way they feel best and just stay out of it. They have the right to go hard on this and they are. But there are all kinds of twists and turns.

So what's new is I guess they found some new emails that include a journalist who's an anti-Trump, well-known anti-Trump journalist. Wolf is his name. Michael Wolff. And he's written anti-Trump books and he's been on TV doing anti-Trump interviews for years and years and years. And then there's allegedly something from one of the victims which we believe is Virginia Giuffre who allegedly according to one of the emails spent hours with Trump.

Now let's look at some of these accusations individually. How credible are they? How credible are the accusations if they involve Epstein, this journalist Wolff, and then one of the victims, Virginia Giuffre, who is not only deceased tragically, but also was famous for having accused Dershowitz that she later completely reversed and said, "Oh, I just had you confused with somebody."

Now, I of course will never know what is true or what is false of any of the Epstein stuff. But what we can say if somebody is known and admits that they once made an accusation that they later completely reversed, wouldn't it be fair to say that person has no credibility even if it's true? They don't have credibility because they've told the story and they've reversed it once. So you can't trust that person.

So you've got one person who sadly is a victim of course. So she's a victim first, but there's no reason to believe anything that she said about anything. And I guess the accusation is that one of the victims, which we believe is this Virginia, but we don't know for sure, may have spent a few hours with Trump. What does that mean? What does it mean that they spent a few hours together? There's no accusation that they were doing anything naughty. And indeed, she has said in public before she passed, she said that he never did anything, that Trump was never even accused by her of doing anything inappropriate.

So what would it mean that they spend several hours together? Well, I don't know the answer to the question, but one of the ways that these hoaxes get created is if the audience can't understand what other explanation there would be. So when you hear, well, Trump might have spent hours with this underage female in some context, where does your brain automatically go? It automatically goes to the worst case scenario.

But that's how the hoaxes work. If you can't even imagine what would be another reason that those two would spend time together. So I'm just going to give you an easy obvious alternative explanation. Doesn't mean it's true. I'm just demonstrating that it would be easy to imagine something that would be hard to imagine. Once you hear it, you'll just always be able to imagine it.

All right. Epstein had a private plane. We know that people like Trump and other people sometimes took his private plane to go where they were going to go anyway. So it's just sort of a convenience, something rich people do. Hey, take my plane. It is not uncommon, and I know this from actual experience, that if you're going to take somebody's private plane somewhere, often there's someone else who needs to go there at the same time, and somebody will say, "Do you mind if somebody else is on the plane?" Of course not. It's not even my plane. Of course.

What would happen if Trump said, "Can I take your plane? You know, mine's being serviced. Do you mind if I take your plane to New Jersey?" Imagine Epstein says, "Yes." And then an hour later, Virginia Giuffre comes and says, "I need to visit my sister in New York or something. Can I take the plane?" And then Epstein would say, "Oh, yeah. Trump's going to be taking the plane to New Jersey. We'll just pick an airport that's right for both of you and you can take the plane."

Now imagine that both of them are on the private plane and Trump's just minding his own business or whoever he's with and she's just another passenger on the plane and it's a several hour plane trip. Would they talk? Probably. Would it be a scandal if he chatted with somebody else who happened to be on the plane for completely innocent reasons or just going to the same-ish destination? There would be no problem with that at all. He would just be friendly like he always is and just talking to who's on the plane.

Now, I'm not claiming that that's what happened. But can't you so easily imagine that they would spend time together that neither of them planned to do because they were just sort of in that little universe and maybe the plane was a convenience, etc.

So the first thing you need to know is that if you're missing all the details of who the person is and why they spent time and what they were doing together, it's not really a story. The most basic things you would need to know to know if there's a problem are missing from the story. Is he accused of doing anything? No. Was there a perfectly good alternative reason for why they were talking? Probably.

All right. The other thing, let's see what else is the new accusation. I guess somewhere Michael Wolff suggested to Epstein that they blackmail Trump. So if you wondered, is Wolff a dependable, nice guy? He's literally in writing suggested that Epstein use leverage against Trump based on I don't know something that Trump knew or did. And then there's an accusation that Trump knew about some bad behavior, but the bad behavior that he allegedly knew about is not specified. So what are we talking about?

So there was something about women. So we know the domain has something about women, which might mean underage. And apparently Trump was complaining about something that Epstein was doing with females and they were going to try to use that against him somehow.

Now, what exactly is the crime there? It depends how much he knew, right? It also makes me wonder where does your responsibility begin if you heard a rumor but you don't know for sure. Have you ever thought about that? I remember once many years ago there was somebody I worked with who started suspecting their own husband of being a serial killer, like actually a literal one and a specific one who had killed some children and she actually had some suspicion based on some items that she found in a house or something that he was the one who had killed the children.

Now, what was her responsibility? It's her husband and she has no proof, but she has sort of these suggestive little things that make her think, "Huh, I can't really rule out that my husband might be the serial killer." Now, is it her responsibility to turn in her husband? Because he might be a serial killer. I don't know.

Now, let's take that same thinking to Trump. Suppose people had said to Trump, and I'm sure there were whisperers, you know, you better watch out for this guy. He likes them too young. Well, what's that mean? Does that mean he's having sex with them too young or that he's just spending too much time with people who are too young or that he's trafficking them? Suppose you didn't know what that meant, but somebody credible had told you, you know, you watch out for that guy there. There's something in that domain. We don't know the specifics, but he's doing something in that domain that you want to stay away from. Let's say that's all Trump knew. Would he have a responsibility to do what? Turn him into authorities or should he just ban him from his own operation which apparently he did so that it's not his problem. What do you think?

So that's a real question because I don't think there's any sort of standard for when you have enough suspicion to publicly blame somebody of being a pedophile. Like that's got to be right at the top of the list of you better have some real good proof before that comes out of your mouth.

If I seem parched, it's because one of my meds makes me dehydrated.

Anyway, so if you look at the things that Trump is being accused of with these new emails, it's sort of a lot of nothing. But the Democrats can make it sound like something. And it does make you wonder, is it a coincidence that this pops up right around the time that Trump seems to have this victory with opening the government and things seem to be going his way and then oh, suddenly there's baseless accusations and hoaxes again. Surprise.

All right. So I would say if you didn't know that Michael Wolff is an anti-Trumper who was in favor of blackmail according to the emails and hung around with Jeffrey Epstein, shouldn't that be enough to not trust him? And the other person who would know enough has passed away.

Byron York had a similar observation and he said on X, "Perhaps the most interesting news out of the Epstein releases today is that anti-Trump author Michael Wolff was an Epstein adviser and strategist." So as much as Michael Wolff might want to use this situation to smear Trump reputationally, how do you get past being Epstein's adviser and strategist? How do you explain that away? How do you put that on your Wikipedia page? I don't know. I feel like Wolff is not going to come out of this very well.

All right. So I'm going to frame this. I'm going to reframe this. I would say that the new information, the new emails do not have legal weight. In other words, there's nothing there that would trigger any kind of a legal process. They do not have legal weight. What they do have is gossip weight, meaning that they will trigger gossip and they will trigger hoaxes and they will trigger false beliefs and everything else. So this is a gossip level story. It's not a Department of Justice level story. This is gossip level.

And once you realize it's gossip level and you realize that the timing is kind of convenient, you know, takes a little the glow off of Trump's recent successes, now you can sort of see it in its proper context.

I don't know if you noticed that the story seemed to have been ignored by the right-leaning media this morning. So when I first turned on the news, I saw CNN and they were talking about Epstein and I thought, "Oh my goodness, there's another Epstein thing." So since I prefer my news from other sources, although I like sampling CNN, they're doing a better job lately, I jump over to Fox News because I'm thinking, well, obviously they're going to have to cover this as a big story. And it wasn't. Yeah, I'm sure they talked about it before and after, but did anybody notice that the bubbles formed? And I would think that a whole lot of pro-Trump people realized that if they had given this actual weight or credibility that Trump would come after them so hard, it would be a big mistake.

So it could be that we're seeing a signal that Trump has now so much influence over the right-leaning media that they completely stayed away from the ticking time bomb of another Epstein story. And by the way, it doesn't seem like it's higher than gossip level. So you can understand why they would de-emphasize something that's only gossip level. But the left will be all over it. Thomas Massie is all over it. You can see why Thomas Massie and Trump will probably not become friends anytime soon. Can you imagine being Trump and then seeing a guy pushing this? Like I say, it's a completely different story when Boebert and MTG push a story about a male potential abuser, accused abuser, convicted abuser. They have every right, like they have every ethical, moral right, but I don't know what Massie and Trump are going to do in the future.

All right. Apparently, Trump would have to sign the bill. This is the funny part. Don't we assume that no matter what happens, we're not going to see the files because the Senate would have to agree? I don't know if that's possible and then Trump would have to sign it because they don't have enough votes to overcome a presidential veto. So as long as you know for sure that Trump's going to veto it and you know for sure they don't have votes to get past the veto, I don't think, right? Am I wrong about that? Oh, I could be wrong about that. Huh?

There's some possibility that the Republicans will just say, "All right, screw it. We can't deal with this every day for the rest of our lives. We're just going to overcome the veto and let's just see what's there."

Now, the real question is, why would Trump want you not to see these files? That's the thing we most want to know, right? And unfortunately, there are too many reasons that it could be. So what are the reasons? One is that there's something bad in there about him. That's the obvious one. But what if the only bad part is that he knew more than you knew he knew about what Epstein was up to? How much would that bother you? Let's say he knew more than you knew he knew, but he still didn't know. Like he didn't witness anything. He didn't have any perfect source that he knew was true. It's just he just sort of knew because if you're smart and you're worldly and you're around things, you sort of know, right?

So it might be that he just doesn't want people to know that a reasonable person could have deduced that there's a bigger problem than maybe was obvious on the surface. Could it be that it's some kind of intel connection thing and there's some intel agency that doesn't want this to come out. So Trump might be just supporting his CIA or maybe they blackmailed him too. Could be some foreign intel. Could be protecting some foreign leaders. Could be protecting Great Britain. You know, if Prince Andrew has been named as one of the perps, Great Britain said, "Here's the deal. We will die on this hill." There's no reason to believe they said this, but could you imagine the conversation that the royal family or Great Britain would have with Trump privately if they knew there was more to come out, let's say with Prince Andrew in particular, would they possibly say, "Look, we will give you anything to not let this out. You tell us what you need. You want a better tariff? You got it. You want us to fund