on, if you're Trump, would that be enough of a reason to keep those files from being released? That's a tough one because I think most of you would say, "I don't care about your stupid argument, Scott. In this particular situation, you just have to release everything." But what about this? Nope. Release everything. But what about the... No, you just have to release everything. And maybe that's the only way we get past it. But I will tell you, if we release everything, there's something like a 100 percent chance it will destroy lives of men who may not have done the worst thing that they're accused of doing. You know, you could argue why were you even involved? You know, why did you even know these people? Separate argument. But yeah, no secrets, lol. Anyway, just so you know, there is a strong argument for not releasing them, even if there's nothing critical of Trump in them.

There's a new book by author Barry Levine about Epstein. He was talking to Smerconish today on CNN. I like Smerconish. And he was talking about what Epstein meant in a 2011 email that we now have access to. And in that email, I guess Epstein said, "The dog that hasn't barked is Trump." Now, how in the world are we supposed to know what that means? The dog that hasn't barked is Trump. Really? How many different things could that mean? Like if you made a list of what it might mean, how long would the list be? Pretty long, right? Pretty long. Pretty long.

Anyway, so the author Barry Levine says he suspects that Epstein was saying he was 75 percent there in believing that Trump might have been the whistleblower. So his assumption is that it was something about Trump being the one who blew the whistle so to speak on Epstein's bad behavior. So we don't have confirmation of that. But this would suggest that Epstein and Trump really were not, at least at the time of these emails, were more like mortal enemies than friends, wouldn't you say? Because you'd have to be sort of a mortal enemy or just a criminal, I guess. You know, if you just assumed Trump wanted to stay on the right side of the law and he cared about the victims, then you would say he was just doing what an adult should do in that situation. I don't know. We'll never know.

And then there's the story about I guess Epstein was stealing some of the women that were working at the Mar-a-Lago spa. He was trying to, I don't know what you would call it, grooming them. And then there was a story about they were both fighting over the same piece of real estate near Mar-a-Lago. So now we've got the was he the whistleblower? Maybe yes, maybe no. And we've got the he was stealing staff. That would have been bad. And then we have the real estate thing which might have been the worst of all the things in terms of how angry they were at each other because there would be bigger money involved. So are we getting closer to understand what happened? It doesn't feel like it, does it? If you looked at what you knew a year ago or something and then compare it to what you know now with all these revelations, has anything changed? Is there anything about your opinion of this whole situation that's now different? I don't know. Like I feel like maybe a few blanks got filled in but not really important ones. I don't know. We'll never know.

Meanwhile here's one of these evergreen stories that just will never go away. Apparently the British government is being accused of withholding data that might link COVID jabs to excess deaths and that allegedly the reason that the government would do that is it would lead to distress or danger or anger. Distress or anger. The Telegraph is reporting on this. What do you think? Disclosed TV is also writing about this on X now. Is that new? Would you consider that news? Or were you already for so long, many months or years, already on the page of, oh yeah, you know, there's some data that shows maybe it was more bad than good. The trouble is, as I often say, there's no data you can trust on the pandemic. Let me say that again. There's no data you can trust. There's lots of data, but there's no data you can trust on the pandemic. You can't trust that it was safe. Can't trust it was unsafe. Can't trust it was safe for some people. Can't trust that it was unsafe for some people. There's actually nothing you can trust when it comes to the data about the pandemic. So I see a story like that and I go, "Well, yeah, there'll be 50 more of those. I don't know what's true."

Meanwhile, as you know, Trump is suing the BBC for maybe up to a billion dollars for editing one of his interviews. And I saw I think it was on Fox the list of the people he successfully sued so far. So YouTube he got 26 million. Trump did. Meta 25 million. I don't know when he sued X but he got 10 million. That had to be before Elon took over? I don't remember that actually. CBS he got 16 million and Disney 69. Is that real? Did he really get 69 million from Disney? 69. Oh my goodness.

And you know, I have mixed feelings about this. Mixed feelings. On one hand, I don't really want my government suing my media. You know what I mean? That's sort of a little bit icky. You don't want that. On the other hand, don't you want to live in a world where the media is afraid of going after somebody unless they really have the goods? They can't just make up. Wouldn't you like t