#0029 - Kash Patel

Ever notice how ads always pop up at the worst moments?

When the killer's identity is about to be revealed.

During that perfect meditation flow.

On Amazon Music, we believe in keeping you in the moment.

That's why we've got millions of ad-free podcast episodes so you can stay completely immersed in every story, every reveal, every breath.

Download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite podcasts at free, included with Prime.

It's that time of year again, back to school season.

And Instacart knows that the only thing harder than getting back into the swing of things is getting all the back-to-school supplies, snacks, and essentials you need.

So here's your reminder to make your life a little easier this season.

Shop favorites from Staples, Best Buy, and Costco all delivered through Instacart so that you can get some time back and do whatever it is that you need to get your life back on track.

Instacart, we're here.

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience 2234

with guest Cash Patel.

No Rogan Experience starts right now.

Welcome back to the the show.

It's a show where two podcasters with now 87 hours of Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

It's the show for anyone who's curious about Joe Rogan, his guests, and their claims, as well as for anyone who wants to understand Joe's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Cecil Cicarello.

I'm joined by Michael Marshall, and today we're going to be covering Joe's June 6th, 2025 interview with Cash Patel.

So, Marsh, how did Joe introduce Cash in the show notes?

So, according to Joe's show notes, Cash Patel is the director of the FBI, appointed in February 2025, a former federal public defender, national security prosecutor, and senior official in both the Department of Justice and the Trump administration.

He has held roles across the intelligence community, Department of Defense, and National Security Council.

Okay, but is there anything else we should know?

Yeah, there is.

There is.

So to say that Cash Patel was a controversial pick for his role at the fbi would be a colossal understatement um patel was chosen not for a distinguished career which he does not have but instead for his loyalty his unwavering loyalty to donald trump and that is a trait that he's got in abundance he's written three children's books inspired by his conspiracist views about the deep state coming for donald trump um none of which he's allowed to mention in this interview to be clear because that would be a violation of all sorts of uh rules um those include the plot against the king which is about a wizard called cash the distinguished discoverer who helps a noble hero named king donald foil characters like hillary queanton and kamalalala wow those sound familiar but i can't place it anyway can't put my finger on it so he also went on to release the follow-up the plot against the king 2000 mules in 2022 wow and he released the plot against the king 3 the return of the king when trump was re-elected

He even signed copies of The Plot Against the King with WWG1WGA, as in Where We Go One, We Go All, which is a QAnon message.

And he did that because he's a prominent QAnon supporter.

Woof.

From 2021 to 2023, Patel was the host of Cash's Corner, which was a show on Epoch TV, a streaming television service operated by the Falun Gong-affiliated newspaper, The Epoch Times.

He's claimed that January 6th, the capital attack was run at least in part by the deep state, and that there was secret FBI provocateurs at the head of groups like the Oath Keepers.

In 2024, Igor Lopotonuk, who is a Russian filmmaker associated with the Russian government, paid Patel $25,000 to appear on a six-part series called All the President's Men: The Conspiracy Against Trump, which was on the Tucker Carlson News Network.

And less than a year after that, he was appointed to the head of your FBI.

So what exactly did they talk about, Marsh?

So they talked about fentanyl, China, RussiaGate, Epstein, immigration, people trafficking, terrorism, what a great job Cash Patel is doing, and how Cash really isn't allowed to plug his book on the show.

He should have

his arm and a sling from patting himself on the back this episode.

He really should.

Okay, so before we get to our main event, we want to just say thanks to our Area 51 all Access Pass patrons.

That includes the Fallacious Trump podcast, tax-free nuclear beer run, Stone Banana, Stargazer97, Scott Laird, Daleen, Dr.

Messiandy, Laura Williams, No Not That One, the Other One, Grotius, the End of All Things, Definitely Not an AI Overlord.

Levin Gruthius, Am I a Robot?

Captcha says no, but maintenance records say yes.

Chonky Cat in Chicago says no kings.

Alfred at Blue Ridge, True Crime on Substack, Fred R.

Gruthius, Don't Think Me, Your Show Is Just Worth Investment, and KTA.

They subscribe to patreon.com/slash no Rogan.

You can do that as well.

All patrons get early access to episodes with a special patron-only bonus segment each week.

And this week, we're going to find out why cash is sniffing so much this episode.

Check it out on patreon.com/slash no rogan.

But for now, our main event.

It's John.

Huge thank you to this week's veteran voice of the podcast.

That was Kate Phillips.

Shout out to Corey announcing our main event.

Remember that you too can be on the show by sending a recording of you giving us your best rendition of It's Time.

Send that to noroganpod at gmail.com, as well as how you'd like to be credited.

Please, people, you need to do this.

I'm going to run out of these eventually.

So you need to just keep on doing this.

You got to keep sending them.

Okay, so for our main event segment this week, Marsh, we're going to be covering the Jeffrey Epstein case because that was a major focus on this particular podcast.

They spent about 25 to 30 minutes of this two-hour interview talking about Jeffrey Epstein, the case, what the FBI has, what the Justice Department has, et cetera, et cetera, and sort of hashing out what, you know, what's the difference between conspiracy and reality, et cetera, et cetera.

And so we're going to cover much of that in this main event.

We're going to have an undercard later that covers more of sort of a broad FBI.

But here is the first clip on Jeffrey Epstein.

And look,

let's just get to it because I know it's on people's minds.

Epstein, right?

The reason people are pissed off about that is the same.

Same thing, right?

20 years ago, or whenever it was, 2006, 7, 8, Epstein gets his sweetheart plea deal, right?

After committing the most horrific crimes on planet Earth, right?

I wasn't in power there.

I wasn't in place there.

I had nothing to do with it.

But people were rightfully pissed.

I mean, this guy was committing the most grotesque acts you can against children.

And

the media spins up about it.

Many in the media protected him.

Why?

Because of his relationships, who he knew, who his bankers were, who his colleagues were, who was on the island, and stuff like that.

Some pretty powerful human beings.

And so when you peel back the layer, and then you, and then what happened?

The Trump administration, the last go-round, decided, no, no, we're not going to let that go.

We're going to investigate him, right?

They charge him, they indict him,

and he's awaiting trial.

And

I've said it, Dan Bongino said it, we've reviewed all the information, and the American public is going to get as much as we can release.

He killed himself.

Do you think, let's play out the logical conclusion of this, do you think that myself, Bongino, and others

would participate in in hiding information about Epstein's grotesque activities?

Or do you think we would also participate in not prosecuting people we had evidence to prosecute people on?

The problem is there's been like 15 years of people coming in and creating fictions about this that doesn't exist.

Where's the videotape?

of an Epstein Island of X, Y, and Z committing these frauds.

Why haven't you given it to us?

Do you really think I wouldn't give that to you if it existed?

There's so much here to cover, Marsh.

This is a really juicy clip.

And we're starting out the show with it because I think like there's so much in it in this very beginning piece.

What he's describing is a group of people who have shown this conspiracy over and over and over again.

And now they're standing in front of a wardrobe.

They've looked behind the curtain and looked inside these files.

They're standing in front of a wardrobe and being like, yeah, I'm sorry, Narnia is closed today.

The thing is, you've done this work and you've sewed this over so many years.

Like, now people want answers, and there's nothing to give them.

The person who he's talking about gave his sweetheart deal to Epstein was a secretary of labor for Donald Trump, Alex Acosta.

He's the one who did it, and Trump gave him

a cabinet position.

It's a bit of a bold play for him to be saying, Look, if I had evidence, me, Cash Patel, you know, me, the Cash Patel, if I had evidence, don't you think I'd release it?

That's what he's doing here.

It's essentially a trust me braw argument.

And that would be fine, but it only works if you first prove yourself to be trustworthy.

But as we're going to see in the Rundercard, Patel doesn't prove himself to be trustworthy.

He lies about his work at the FBI.

He lies about what the FBI was doing before him, what it's doing now.

He does it all the way through this interview.

And so even if he is telling the truth on this, it's very difficult because his audience has been trained not to accept it from him because he's this kind of exaggerant figure.

And that's not to think, it's not to say that I think he's covering up for Epstein because I genuinely, I don't.

But I think it shows that you put people in positions of power based on loyalty rather than integrity.

Yes.

You know, that's what's going to happen.

You're going to not be able to play this.

Trust me, bro.

You know, there's a reason that Trump's fans aren't satisfied when Patel says, hey, if I had it, I'd give you it because they don't believe that he's there for reasons of integrity.

And also, like, among the people, he says, oh, there's all these people.

There's been so much time of people creating fictions about what happened on Epstein Island.

And that's mudding the water and making it so impossible to really get the truth out there.

The people, among the people who are making those fictions is Joe Rogan and his guests.

We've seen it already on this show.

We covered it on the Ian Carroll episode where they were having conversations about what was going on on Epstein Island.

So while Patel doesn't realize he's saying this, he's talking to one of those fiction makers here.

For all that he's talking about horrific crimes and for all that Rogan and Trump's other fans have talked about all the awful, grotesque, horrible things that Epstein has done, they don't show any real compassion for the victims.

There's no care here for the victims.

This isn't about the victims.

This is just another conspiracy narrative to spin, another story to tell, another set of details to chew over and look for anomalies.

The girls and in some cases, boys, that Epstein and whoever else raped aren't real people to Cash Patel and Joe Rogan and the conspiracy theorists here.

And I'd be genuinely surprised if Rogan could name one victim who spoke out about Epstein.

All right.

So next clip is talking about whether it was a suicide or it was a murder.

What did you think before you got into office?

Did you think that Epstein was murdered?

No.

No suspicion at all of it?

But I have a different background, right?

Right.

So I was a public defender back in the day.

I used to spend a lot of time in jails and a lot of time in segregated housing units, shoes, as we call them, right?

And so,

and I've known people that have committed suicide in these cells.

And I know how you get in, how you get out, who works the system.

And so the way, based on public information at the time, that he ended up the pictures and him hanging himself, I was like, yeah, that guy killed himself.

It's, there's just no way that you could have run an op and had people go into that cell and not have any video of it and not have any people come out and say, hey, yeah, I saw that guy.

He shouldn't have been there, the guard or this guy.

There's just no access points into places like this in the detention center he was in, which I've been in.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but what I was told, what I'd read, was that the guards were not paying attention or were sleeping.

Well, right?

Yeah.

And in short order, you'll see it.

Is that correct?

Well, it's hard to surmise that from a video, right?

Like where they like, you know, and look, do guards doze off on the night shift?

Yeah.

But no one can get in to the cell.

And if they had gotten in to the cell, you would see it.

But we were told that the cameras were down well i don't know who said that but that was that was in the news um we're giving you all the footage we have i just want to say so what if the cameras were down the cell was closed lots of other things in place have to be there just the cameras being down doesn't mean anything now he joe is right there was a uh some damage and some change to the cameras i'm going to read this this is from fox news

quote digital forensics experts discovered that a clip released by the Department of Justice was actually made from at least two separate video segments stitched together using Adobe Premiere Pro.

That finding raises fresh concerns about transparency, particularly because that video was released by the Trump administration last week to help dispel conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein's death.

The discrepancy was first reported by Wired, which worked with metadata specialists to analyze the file.

The analysis showed that one of the original source clips used to create the final video was two minutes and 53 seconds longer than it was that the, than what the DOJ had released.

End quote.

Yeah.

And this is actually pretty frustrating.

It's particularly frustrating because if this is the footage that you have, this is what information you actually have.

Don't announce it as raw footage.

Yes.

Don't say we're going to release the raw footage when you know you haven't got the raw footage because you already know you've got and you've cultivated such a conspiracist base.

If if there really was a master plan to pull the wall over everybody's eyes, they wouldn't have called it raw footage.

They'd have said, we've got footage from the cameras.

They wouldn't have said it was raw footage or they'd have manipulated it in a way to obscure the metadata, you know, using their own metadata specialists to obscure the metadata in some way.

They didn't do that.

For this to be a conspiracy, you'd still, you'd need to believe that these conspiracists were uber competent enough to pull off this assassination while in a secure housing unit, but not to think of the metadata on the footage that nobody forced them to delete.

They could have got away with saying, Yeah, that footage was deleted.

And people would have been conspiratizing about it, but they wouldn't have had any increase to point to.

Yeah, yeah.

And I want to just caution all skeptics out there: just because there's missing footage doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks on what happened.

The doors were locked.

There's other footage around the prison.

There's tons of witnesses in a prison.

There's people that make sure you have to sign in to go in and out, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The

If the footage or evidence shows that someone killed him, then I'm going to believe it.

I will believe evidence if you present it to me, but not the absence of the evidence.

I don't get to fill the blanks in for that.

Yeah, exactly.

And once again, this is the pigeons coming home to roost.

That's what we're seeing here.

If you're going to trade in conspiracy theories in order to get into power, as Cash Patel has done, as Trump has done, you know, the birth of conspiracy theory is one of the things that brought him onto the political landscape when Obama was president.

The Jan 6th

being

a conspiracy against him, the stolen election stuff, all that kind of stuff is what got him elected.

You've trained your fans to ask questions like this without ever really caring about the bigger picture.

So essentially, conspiracy theories, they sort of run on a God of the gaps model.

You know, we've got a gap.

There's no footage of Epstein around the time he died.

There's the gap.

Okay, here's the footage.

Does that fill the gap?

No, it doesn't fill the gap.

It just gives you the opportunity to find more gaps.

Oh, where's the missing footage here?

Does this kind of make sense there?

What can't we see in the picture?

So every time you provide a piece of evidence, you're not filling a need.

You're just giving them an opportunity, giving grist to the mill to find more gaps.

Even if they found that, let's say they came out next week and they said, oh, we found a better version of the tape.

There is no edits, et cetera.

Here it is.

People would be like, you fixed this.

You can't, that now

they've done this sort of bad release.

Now people will find another foothold, like you suggest, another gap to be like wait a minute you're releasing this why are you releasing this now why didn't you have it last week etc etc do you just keep on moving the goalposts yeah absolutely there's no bottom to that way of thinking the only way to avoid that way of thinking is to not train your conspiracy teams to think that way in the first place

but you've given them all that training and now they're using that training against you it's no real surprise and like i say personally i think the guy probably killed himself will come to reasons why in fact in this show um but and it's worth leaning towards that conclusion until there is some compelling evidence to the contrary.

And that compelling evidence has to be more than shadowy people, shadowy unnamed people had a motive.

When we get some evidence, I'll change my mind.

I'm not that committed to this position.

But at the moment, the best available evidence suggests he probably did kill himself.

Yes.

But what if we got another autopsy, Cecil?

You know, that's the key is if you just keep getting autopsies, you'll eventually find what you're looking for.

Here's the first clip on autopsies.

Do you remember that HBO autopsy show?

Dr.

Michael Badden.

He's a famous forensic

scientist.

So he's a pathologist, and he reviewed the case, and it was his determination that it was a homicide because of the way his neck was broken.

And what he said was it was indicative of a ligature strangulation.

And it was because of the positioning on the neck where the marks were, that it wasn't indicative of someone hanging by their weight, which had been higher on the chin.

And there's a specific break of the bones in the vertebrae that's consistent with someone who is just strangled to death.

I haven't seen it.

I'll definitely take a look at it because that's part of my job.

You haven't seen that?

The report on that?

No, I haven't looked at that.

Did you see any,

was there any other autopsy done other than the official one?

Not to my knowledge, but if there was, you'll get it.

And that's what we're doing.

Why would there be even need to be another autopsy other than the official one?

What are you talking about?

It's ridiculous.

Also, why would we trust the judgment of a guy who does autopsies on TV?

And it turns out a guy who did autopsies on TV 20 years ago, he said the show was on air in the early 2000s.

That's Joel's evidence here.

Why do we trust that guy over the judgment of the coroner who produced the original autopsy report?

Like, for one thing, you don't get onto TV and into the news by saying that you think the autopsy report was reasonable and accurate.

This is, for me, no different to the engineers who are cited as believing that 9-11 was an inside job.

You know, they're notable because they disagree.

They're not notable because they've got insight that other experts in that field

haven't got that kind of insight.

But for Joe, it is totally reasonable that a guy who does autopsies on a show on television, that his opinion should hold weight because this is just conspiracy theater.

Again, this isn't about real crimes.

This isn't about real victims.

It's a fun puzzle to chat about in conversations with your mates over cigars.

And think about this too.

How many people now are we starting to include in this conspiracy, right?

Now you've got all the people that had to somehow get somebody into a jail to kill Jeffrey Epstein, or the guards themselves killed him, or whatever concoction you've thought up.

Then they've got to somehow get to the person who's doing the autopsy and give them money or convince them in some way to make a report that is contrary to what other

coroners think, et cetera, et cetera.

It just, you keep on adding more and more people to this.

Someone eventually will say something or something will slip.

Like you can't just keep an unending number of people quiet.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, right down to the video footage, who had custody of the video footage.

You've got to go through every single one of those and get them on board.

Anybody in the prison who could have seen someone come and go, you've got to be careful to ensure that nobody in the prison could have seen that.

There's all sorts of stuff you've got to lock down.

It's not impossible.

It's just the bar for it being true gets higher and higher the more people you add into the mix.

Yeah.

All right.

So more on this autopsy person.

See if you could find that Dr.

Michael Badden thing.

Do you remember that show?

The HBO show?

No.

Pretty cool show.

So this guy, Dr.

Michael Badden, he had a long career of catching murderers, you know, exhuming bodies, finding trace amounts of poisons, different kinds of things.

And it was a crazy show, like all these wild ways.

Well, I love watching shows and I spent a lot of time on planes.

Yeah, it was an old show.

It was a show, like, from the early 2000s, I believe.

But this guy was like, you know, this very well-respected forensic scientist who would analyze these bodies, and it was his determination that he was murdered.

Yeah.

And my job, going back to the core of what I've been doing since I studied Russia Gate, was to get and is to get everybody the information.

When did you get here?

Epstein's autopsy points to homicide pathologists hired by brother claims.

New York City medical examiner strongly disputed the claim that the evidence from the autopsy suggested strangulation.

So let's go to the, by the way, this is the New York Times and they never lie.

The private pathologist Dr.

Michael Badden said the morning TV show Fox and friends, Mr.

Epstein, experienced a number of injuries, among them a broken bone in his neck, that are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation.

I think the evidence points to homicide rather than suicide, said Dr.

Badden, who observed the autopsy done by city officials.

Dr.

Badden, a former New York City medical examination and a Fox News contributor, said, I have not seen in 50 years where that occurred in suicidal hanging case.

Findings by Dr.

Badden were strongly disputed by the city's chief medical examiner, Dr.

Barbara Sampson, who previously ruled that Mr.

Epstein's death on August 10th in the Metropolitan Correctional Center was a suicide.

I stand firmly behind our determination of the cause and manner of death in this case.

Dr.

Sampson said in the interview on Wednesday, she added, in general, fractures of the hyoid bone and cartilage can be seen in suicides and homicides.

The hyoid bone is near the Adam's apple.

Dr.

Sampson also dismissed Dr.

Batten's contention that the circumstances around Mr.

Epstein's death suggested other people may have been involved.

She said her office had done a complete investigation, taking into consideration information gathered by law enforcement in the making in making the determination.

So this is a perfect example of going back to my public defender and prosecutor days.

This is what we call a war of experts.

You can always find someone

to come in and say the opposite.

And I used to do it all the time.

I love this.

There's a point there early on where Cash is saying, Joe introduced him to his TV show, and Cash says, I love watching shawls and I spend a lot of time on planes.

It's like, Cash, do some work.

You're the head of the FBI.

Maybe if you're flying for work, take some files, review them, do some work, man.

What are we paying you for, man?

Yeah, not to catch up with autopsy shares from hbo in the early 2000s

but again joe's reading this all out because he's like yeah mr fbi director why didn't you talk to that guy who was on tv 20 years ago who had nothing to do with the case but reckoned something that's high on the list of priorities yeah i i just want to read this is from uh this is from wikipedia badden's independent autopsy findings are often in conflict with local authorities opinions as such many consider him to be a headline-seeking physician as opposed to a legitimate source for information.

There's

television, the guy who had TV shows.

No, surely he's not just out for getting attention.

Exactly, right?

There's two notable pieces from the Wikipedia article.

I'm going to just briefly mention that he testified in the O.J.

Simpson trial on August 10th and 11th, and he made two claims that he later disowned in the civil trial.

So during the criminal trial, he said one thing, and then during the civil trial, they brought him up and he had to disown what he had said.

Then in 2007, he testified on a new theory of the death of the music producer, Phil Specter's victim,

and he sought to provide an alternative explanation for blood on the victim's coat.

When asked by a prosecutor if he had any conflicts of interest, Baden replied, none that I can think of.

It was later revealed that his wife was one of Specter's main attorneys.

So like, yeah, do you have any kind of none that I can think of?

So I don't know that we can really believe what this person's saying, but then also let's take into account the things that they left out that they didn't read.

Joe started to get into it at the end.

He started to get into this other person says that's wrong, but there's another whole piece of that article that he left out.

Here it is.

Quote.

At the time, several medical officials cautioned against relying solely on the broken hyoid as evidence of strangulation.

It's not a slam dunk, Marcella Sorg, a forensic anthropologist, said in an interview.

She said a broken hyoid is a sign of neck trauma that can occur in both strangulation and hanging cases.

Dr.

Burton Bentley II, head of the elite medical experts, a consulting firm based in Arizona, echoed that skepticism.

It's not 100%, he said.

It's not even going to get us to 90.

Yeah, yeah.

And also, bear in mind, as Joe actually points out, but glosses straight over, the evidence that they're looking at that suggests this was actually murder was from a pathologist who was hired by Epstein's brother to look into this.

Now, think of Joe reading that about a different topic and not recognizing there was a source of bias there.

And anything that Joe, you know, feels was kind of being covered up in any kind of way.

So, well, you know, this evidence was provided by the brother of the guy.

Of course, he's going to say that.

And Joe reads out this counter statement that points out that Barden saw the files and came to conclusions that were in contradiction, what was observed by the people who had full power of investigating the case.

But why would the guy who just has seen some of the files, why would his insight be better than the people who looked into all of the details, who had full investigatory power?

But the problem here is, again, you're training people to pick their expert opinion based on the conclusions they'd like to be true.

And that's what Joe is doing on this show.

He does it on issues from 9-11 to climate change all the way through.

This is what you get.

This is the outcome of that is people will reject, as Cash Pratel says, in the war of experts.

They'll reject the experts they don't like and they'll find, they'll dig up a guy who was on tele two decades ago as their expert that definitely knows what he's talking about.

All right, we're going to take a short break.

We'll be back right after this.

Check out an internet.

Video como guy,

obtain Wi-Fi in Mazrin with the local con ATNT Fiber con all-Fi.

ATT connectar locambia todo.

ATNT Fiber is connived limitadancertasadians.

Requiem el sevisa covertura Wi-Fi extended TNT concerned.

Shopify helps you sell at every stage of your business.

Like that, let's put it online and see what happens.

Stage.

And the site is live.

That we opened a store and need a fast checkout stage.

Thanks.

You're all set.

That count it up and ship it around the globe stage.

This one's going to Thailand.

And that, wait, did we just hit a million orders stage?

Whatever your stage, businesses that grow grow with Shopify.

Sign up for your $1 a month trial at shopify.com slash listen.

What would you do if you were hospitalized far from home?

Don't worry, AirMed Care Network has you covered with FlyU Home memberships.

Just one call and their providers will transport you back to a hospital of your choice to recover closer to loved ones at zero out-of-pocket cost to you.

FlyU Home offers coast-to-coast to coast and worldwide coverage and is remarkably affordable, starting at $159 a year.

Learn more at AirMedCareNetwork.com forward slash fly.

If you thought goldenly breaded McDonald's chicken couldn't get more golden, think golder because new sweet and smoky special edition gold sauce is here.

Made for your chicken favorites.

I participating in McDonald's for a limited time.

All right, so now they're going to talk about the footage again.

They're going going to talk about the CCCT camera footage that of the outside of Jeffrey Epstein's cell.

When did you become aware of this video that showed that no one had gone in and out of the cell?

Recently.

So, why was it recent, though?

I mean, if this death was, how long ago was this death?

Two years?

A couple.

2019?

2019.

Oh, really?

Time flies.

So, six years.

Well, again, that's part of what I'm going to try to answer for you.

Jeffrey Epstein JLCC TV erased by technical errors.

Whoopsies.

Yeah.

But you see how anybody on the outs, I mean, this is like a perfect storm.

Yeah.

Can you pull that article up so we can read what it says, Jamie?

U.S.

prosecutor said the jail mistakenly saved footage from the wrong cell.

Sorry.

Epstein, a convicted sex offender, first tried to kill himself in July last year and hanged himself in jail.

Hang on, hang on.

Yep.

Reread that line.

That he first tried to kill himself in July of last year.

How much of the American public do you think knows that?

I didn't know that until right now.

There you go.

Maybe I heard it and forgot.

Did you ever hear it, Jamie?

That's why he was on Suicide Watch, I think.

Oh, okay.

I didn't know that.

A lot of people knew that, Joe.

Jesus, man, this guy is so engrossed in these things.

He misses very key information that would change his view.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

And the thing is, he's so invested in this case.

He brings this case up all of the time, but he doesn't know or actually care about core details of the case.

You know, he thinks Epstein died two years ago.

It was six years ago.

It's a small thing, but this is something Joe talks about all the time.

We saw him when we talked about his interview with Ian Carroll.

He was saying to Ian Carroll, I just think it's really important they release the Epstein flight logs.

Those were released in January 2024.

Joe missed them because he's more interested in asking the questions than getting the answers.

And he doesn't know that Epstein had previously tried to kill himself.

And, you know, I agree, a lot of people who were calling for the release of the Epstein files probably don't know that.

I didn't know that detail of the story.

But the thing is, those are the people who are very invested in this story, they don't know that detail because for them, it's not about truths, it's not about the victims, it's about the story and it's about the theater.

And it kind of reminded me going back to another of Joe's favorite conspiracy theories, the JFK assassination.

A lot of people don't know that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker six months before he shot JFK.

And the reason they don't know that is because guy who tried to shoot an authority figure, goes on to shoot a different authority figure, isn't as compelling a story as the conspiracy.

And in this case, narcissist who tried to kill himself goes on to kill himself also isn't as compelling a story as the one they want to tell.

You're right.

I love as well, Joe opened this little clip by saying to Cash, when did you become aware of this footage?

And Cash said recently.

And Joe's like, well, why recently?

It was age score.

It's like, well, Cash became aware recently because he just got in the job, Joe.

I mean, I'm not defending Cash Patel.

He's terrible at this job, but he was appointed in February or something.

Maybe he wasn't given the details before then.

But yeah, they read this BBC article and they're talking about his suicide attempt.

The footage they're talking about

that kind of went missing, that those, you know, he says whoopsie about the footage.

That was footage of his first attempt, not his successful attempt.

So the one that failed.

So we haven't got footage of the time that they found him, quote,

on July 25th, found semi-conscious in his prison cell with injuries to his neck.

We haven't got the footage of that time.

That's what disappeared.

And then the article goes on to say after this incident, he was placed on suicide watch and eventually he was moved to a different cell where he died on the 10th of August.

So when they're talking about the missing footage and the whoopsie, it's pretty clear that Joe thinks they mean footage of his death and not footage of his prior unsuccessful or uncompleted suicide attempt.

Okay, so now they're going to continue talking about this and then they're going to be talking about,

again, was he murdered?

Was it suicide?

Here's their discussion.

Even if he killed himself in prison.

So

if he was murdered in prison, crazy, right?

You could see why very powerful people wouldn't want to kill him.

If he was murdered in segregated housing in isolation after being on suicide watch in a place in a detention center that I've physically been in myself, it would be fiction.

It's just in my experience, that is not doable.

It's not doable, even for the most powerful and wealthiest people in the world.

Yeah.

Wouldn't you think, though, that like if if someone was in a position where a guy could release information that could potentially damage the most wealthy people on earth, you would have a concerted effort that's unprecedented.

Sure.

You would have the resources that we couldn't even possibly comprehend all pointing towards eliminating this one person that it could be done.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: But I mean, so many people have been implicated, right, already.

And some of that information, what do they did to Prince Andrew and everybody else is already out there and so that's the conspiracy stuff that me and Bongino and the folks have to say look we will give you everything we can and then we will have done our job also if I had a shred me Cash Patel had a shred of evidence the Russia gate guy the Jan 6 guy the COVID origins guy had a shred of evidence that this guy was murdered I would be the first guy to bring this case hard and fast and I would do even doing press conferences every week on it

the first guy that's what i'm asking people to play out to their logical conclusion i'm not coming i'm not mccabe i'm not the guy that was in the seat before

and if cash an admitted conspiracy theorist can't find anything you know nothing's there

yeah i mean that's the thing like his his whole line here is trust me in my reputation if i had it i would release it i'm cash patel the cash patel i'd release it this line doesn't hold because his reputation is for loyalty to trump not for integrity and seeking the truth i mean as i covered in the intro, he's the Russiagate guy.

The Russiagate was a hoax.

Russiagate was fake.

He's the Russiagate guy who was paid for by the Russian government.

That is his integrity.

He's not one of the people who were ever appointed to the FBI on merit or diligence service because, you know, for all of their flaws, other people in that role were appointed by being kind of in there for a long time.

He's the guy who got appointed because he wrote a book about Donald Trump being a king.

Yes.

You don't have the reputation to fall back on here,

All right.

So it's really hard, though, to convince Joe because he really does love his conspiracies.

I have a wildly different background.

I've been putting out the truth my entire career.

Why would I risk all of it on this guy?

I believe he cast the letter.

I believe you.

I just think that, you know, the problem is we've been fuming on this conspiracy for so long.

And we love conspiracies, don't we?

As a country, there's so much.

I mean, you know, they make JFK tapes.

Come on, like, release the documents.

We all love them.

We love them.

We love UFO ones.

We love everything.

We love the craziest conspiracies.

They're exciting.

We don't want to hear that he tried to kill himself in July and then succeeded in August.

And

look, I could imagine why the guy wanted to kill himself.

He was going to jail for the rest of his fucking life.

And in jail, sex offenders for children are not treated well.

And also, by the way, most Americans have it, nor should they.

Have you ever spent one minute in segregated housing?

No.

It's the worst, the absolute worst.

Like you and your background, you could probably handle it, right?

Like, you know, just in all reality, most Americans, you put them in there for five seconds, they're going to slam their head against the wall.

Literally, they're going to lose their mind immediately.

Yeah.

It's that bad.

I'm sure.

Yeah, we love conspiracies because they feed this into their very base.

Like, look, Frazzle Drip Pizzagate conspiracy is very much a clone of the Epstein conspiracy.

When you think about all the stuff that they talked about with Pizzagate, it all just rhymes with the Epstein stuff.

Yeah, exactly.

Instead of it being a basement, it was an island, but the rest of it is basically very, very similar.

And that's the thing.

And from this, we can see, you know, Joe really loves conspiracy.

He continues to see this story as a fun, interesting, salacious story to chat about with his buddies and shoot the shit.

This is Roswell.

This is JFK.

In reality, this is crimes against children.

This is really serious, really grotesque kind of stuff, but he doesn't see it as having real victims here.

The victim is him because he gets his conspiracy taken away from him.

Exactly, right?

And it's just like you suggest earlier, the victims never come up in this equation.

They never resurface.

They're never a topic of this unless you're trying to demonize the person who did it.

That's the only reason you would ever mention the victims.

All right.

So, this next bit is talking about the suicide and sort of the, the,

what would need to take place behind the scenes.

I could only imagine.

And I could only imagine this guy knowing that it's over.

And what do you want to do?

Do you want to?

Who knows who the fuck he's working for?

Let's just put that aside.

Now, if you're working for, let's just, we don't have to name names.

We don't have to speculate.

If he's working for some agency, some group, some foreign group, and they decide to target his family because he look he's going to jail for the rest of his life anyway.

They decide to target his family if he testifies against them.

I could see where I, if I thought that it was, look, I'm going to be in jail for the rest of my life or I tell

and my family winds up being killed or destroyed or who knows?

Maybe you'd say, look, the honorable thing is to end it in prison.

Honorable, cowardly thing.

Cowardly, whatever it is.

Like, you just decide.

At some point, that guy was going back into gen pop.

And the one thing I'll tell you about prison systems is the people they eat are child predators.

Yes, and he was going to get eaten.

Well known.

Yeah.

And they probably wouldn't have protected him.

Yeah.

Even Joe agreeing that he died by suicide has to have some conspiracy element to it.

There isn't any evidence that Epstein was a guy working for another government.

He was a creep who liked young girls, and he had a friend that found him for him.

That's the extent of what we know.

There's nothing that links him to anything else.

Yeah, no, absolutely and also he's got to invent well epstein committed suicide oh it's probably because someone was targeting his family and you've got to ask yourself why do people people keep finding justifications for epstein's actions that absolve epstein of some or all of the responsibility great point you know he was being run by mossad in order to get compromise on people or he was being played by ghelaine maxwell who is a mossad agent and he was kind of being uh run by her in that kind of way now he's killing himself to protect his family.

Maybe

he was just an egotistical, narcissistic guy who was used to being able to manipulate his way out of accountability using his networks and his close associations with people and finding their weaknesses and playing on them.

And now he was finally faced with having no strings left to pull and didn't want to have to be held accountable for his actions and paraded through court and actually put under real scrutiny in that kind of way.

And I'd also, I'd love for someone to pause and ask Joe what he means by targeting Epstein's family.

Like, who are you talking about there?

Do you mean kids?

He didn't have any kids.

His parents were dead.

He had a brother and a brother family.

So I guess you could be talking about the brother who was investigating his death with that guy.

Do you mean Ghelane Maxwell?

Like, who are you talking about here?

It's not like you, Joe.

It's not like they're going to come after your wife and kids.

And this is a different guy who lived a different life.

And in some ways, this conspiracy,

what it does is it makes it seem like powerful people aren't powerful, right?

Because

Jeffrey Epstein is just a run-of-the-mill billionaire.

He's just a run-of-the-mill, really powerful person.

And when we seem to say that there's some sort of massive hold he had because of some sort of secrets, we're neglecting that most billionaires have this kind of power.

Most billionaires can manipulate the system, can find people that are, that are, uh, that, that might think, that might feel uh some sympathy to their cause and give them a light sentence give them prison on the weekends kind of sentence right billionaires have this kind of power and when we say jeffrey epstein was a special kind of person we're they're not saying he was special in the fact that he had he he had a big network and was a billionaire instead it's some sort of secret thing it's not a secret thing it's just a lot of goddamn money and a big wide network of people with a lot of goddamn money.

Yeah, I think that's true.

Although, I mean, I wouldn't rule out that he had some stuff on some of the people he was associating with.

I mean, there were talks about there being files being videos that he was taking or records and stuff.

Like it's not going to be a ledger, it's not going to be a client list, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did have some degree of material on some of the people in his network.

But most of the way that he got out of the first time he was arrested and the first and the way he got a sweetheart deal to begin with wasn't about him blackmailing someone.

It was about him having rich friends in high places that he'd manipulated his way into.

I mean, he was very good friends with the president of your country

before he was president.

Yeah.

But nevertheless, you know, that's the power we're talking about here.

Okay, so they're still talking about this video.

Now they're going to talk about the gap.

So the narrative has always been that there's video.

Now, what is the chain of custody?

Is there evidence that there is video?

Is there evidence that it was moved around, stored, protected from people looking at it.

You're going to get all that information.

Like that's literally what we're putting together.

And we're going to give you every single thing we have and can.

And that's the whole point.

We can't fill gaps by making stuff up, and we're not going to do that.

And you have to be methodical.

And we have to be, that's the other thing, right?

We're reviewing not just the video, we're reviewing

everything as meticulously as we can, because that's what we owe the American people.

That's our job.

And I don't want to rush to the sticks or the podium and just say, hey, look what we found.

Right.

And then be like, oh, sorry.

I forgot the four seconds.

You know, if we miss four seconds, we'll be like, oh, well, it's in the four seconds you missed.

So this is awkward.

Here it is.

Wow.

That's amazing.

If there's four seconds that's missed, that's a problem.

What if you fuck up and miss about three minutes worth?

Is that a problem?

Is that a big problem?

And again, I'm not saying there's anything dodgy about those missing minutes.

I don't think there is, absent any other evidence that gives us cause to to think so.

But when you train your entire base to go over every little detail looking for anomalies, I mean, for God's sake, Cash Patel, you were part of QAnon.

You read messages that were, you know, 300 characters long and the people around you were baking those for like minute clues as to what each message could possibly mean.

When you have that and they're looking for anomalies, even the kind of anomalies that happen in real life that they're going to read some of its significance into, when you're training people to do that, you can't be surprised when they find anomalies with your evidence.

That's the problem.

And like I say, if anything, for me, this is evidence against the conspiracy because an all-powerful conspiracy body, the people who are doing the conspiracy, wouldn't have fucked up so badly on this video.

They wouldn't have fucked up like this.

They're so bad.

They're so public.

It's so funny too, because you know you've got to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb because you have all these people who have read 300 character posts and found the tiniest little conspiracy threads that weave their way through.

You've got to be extra special.

And these people are sloppy and terrible at their job.

And everyone is just like, no, that's another conspiracy.

It's kind of amazing that they

were the ones who made this.

Now they got to sit and eat it.

You know, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, uh, so now they talk about other videos.

Now, this is about videos of victims and victim and videos of crimes.

right so i i'm i'm how much can you talk about what you've seen not yet um just just what i've told can you say you've seen anything

no that's the point that there's nothing in there like in the video you you guys will be bored you're talking about the video of the murder or the the suicide

but what about the video of from the island oh that's sorry so you're talking about tatering yes so sorry so yeah so again we're going to give you everything we can and people have to remember remember, we're not going to re-victimize women.

We're not going to put that shit back out there.

It's not happening because then he wins, not doing it.

You want to hate me for it?

Fine.

Again, logical playout.

If there was a video of some guy or gal committing felonies on an island and I'm in charge, don't you think you'd see it?

I think it's interesting.

Again, Cash Patel goes to his, the only thing he's got, which is, if I had the evidence, don't you think you'd see it?

But what he says is, if, you know, it's illogical, if there was video of some guy or gal committing felonies on an island and I'm in charge, don't you think you'd see it?

It's like, sorry, Cash Patel, are you saying you would release child sexual abuse material to prove your point?

Like, I would imagine if you have those videos, you're not going to release them.

You are talking about re-victim, not re-victimizing the victims here.

And then the next breath, you say, but if I had videos of it, obviously, I'd show you

that would be re-victimizing.

And then the idea of they're not going to re-victimize women.

Well, do you remember in February?

I mean, I think this might have been before Patel was was in the role, but they invited 15 right-wing influencers to the White House for Fortor shoots where they were grinning and smiling and laughing and joking, holding binders that were the Epstein files, Phase 1.

When they released all that information, the Epstein files are finally released.

That was a big Fortor shoot.

Do you remember around the same time, the Judiciary GOP official Twitter account posted breaking Epstein files released and then had a link to them and the link was to a Rick roll, was to Never going to give you up by Rick Ashley.

I don't think that was treating the victims with due respect.

I would imagine if I'm the victim seeing the

release of information, the way that the crimes committed against me were being handled, and you were seeing them being handled in this way of used for memes and laughter and smiling photoshoots and owning the libs.

I'd imagine that's re-victimizing.

So he can't play like he and the administration he's working for has had total respect for the victims here because that's complete nonsense.

What do you think they gave those people in the binders?

Well, I think didn't they give them, I think I haven't seen exactly what was out there, but didn't they give them some of the information that was actually already publicly available?

Already publicly available?

But even redacted versions of it.

So some of the stuff they had was redacted.

So it was less information that was currently in the public domain, like flight logs that had been redacted.

And they're like, here it is, here's the flight logs.

Yeah, it's so funny that they walked out holding it and there was nothing in there.

And, you know, this is the same administration, though, that loves political theater.

I mentioned this in another show I do that remember when they wanted to do the health bill in his first term and then a reporter walked up to the health bill that was stacked on the desk and it was all just blank reams of paper.

There was nothing on it.

They just stacked blank sheets of copier paper on a desk to make it seem like they were working.

like fastidiously on something and there wasn't anything there.

So they love political theater.

So this binder was a perfect thing for them to send out and stoke this conspiracism.

And like you suggest throughout this entire episode, Marsh, they're getting burned by their own fire.

Now

they're going to continue on, again, talking about this.

And now they're talking about,

you know, the video and is it available?

How can we get it, et cetera, et cetera?

If you have it.

Right.

But you can't say that you have it.

No, we're giving you everything we have.

So far.

Everything we have so far is.

Have you guys gone over all the video that's available?

Yeah.

That's what I'm telling you.

That's what takes so much damn time.

Right.

And

is there video from the island?

Not of what you want.

The people out there have filled the void with can't wait to see X, Y, or Z.

Right.

Speculation.

And I'm like, here's the other thing I've been asking for, right?

Openly.

If you have information on this, call us.

Tell us.

The best resource we have is the American people in the world.

Get me the tail numbers.

Get me the flight.

You know, get me new information and I will run that down.

So this narrative might not be accurate that there's video of these guys doing this.

Exactly.

Is it possible that the video was taken and destroyed?

Well, you're talking about, what, decades worth of stuff, right?

Remember, we have what we have pursuant to lawful search warrants and authorities from the case that was done

however many years ago it was done.

That's what we have.

If other people have other stuff and they want to give it to us, bring it.

So yeah, he's telling people, send me the leads.

I'll investigate them.

But the thing thing is, by this point, if there are leads still out there, going on Joe Rogan's show is not the way you're going to find those leads, I don't think.

It's not like anybody who knew anything about Epstein was unaware that there was an investigation and a call for witnesses, a call for information.

What you are going to get is a million amateur yarn and pin fans sending in their own kooky theories about what they saw and what they knew.

So this is just going to generate more noise in my imagine,

in my imagination.

I don't imagine this is going to come to any greater lucidity.

I don't think this is going to be cracked by crowdsourcing.

This isn't QAnon.

You can't bake your way into a cohesive narrative, cash.

But the reason I wanted to include this clip in particular is I think it's worth listening to for something that will happen in a couple of clips time because he's saying here, hey, I'll run down every lead.

Give me any indication of any information that's out there and I will run it.

I'm cash Patel.

Do you really think logical conclusion?

Do you think there's anything, any stone I wouldn't overturn to find this information?

I'm going to run everything down.

Remember that.

He should be like blowing on his giant magnifying glass and wiping it on his shirt at this point, you know, like holding up to his eye, getting ready to do his, his best version of Sherlock Holmes.

All right.

So here we go.

This is talking about, this is the second last clip, talking about missing footage.

Have you guys reviewed everything that you have?

Almost.

Like we're, that's, I mean, yes, we have, and now we're figuring out how to

put it out.

Now, I understand that you would never re-victimize these women and show this footage, but is there footage?

Outside of the only thing I can say right now is if there was ever, if there was footage of anyone doing anything else, we would have opened a case.

Is it possible that there was footage that you just will never have access to because they've already gotten rid of it?

I mean, anything's possible.

There was a long time, right, between the time when it was clear that Kamala lost the election and that Trump won.

Yeah.

I mean, I got here before he got into office.

I got here 100 days ago, literally.

Right, exactly.

It was just kind of crazy.

You know, so I'm doing what I can.

So it could just be me, but at the start of the conversation there, it feels like he's saying, I know you'd never show the footage, but would you show me the footage?

Like, maybe he's not saying that, but I couldn't escape that that was kind of a feeling or an inference there.

But yeah, Joe and his fans, they seem like they're desperate to make it seem like Epstein was a major threat to the Democrats.

You know, once it was clear that Kamala lost and Trump was coming in, could stuff have been deleted?

And I don't think he's saying it was deleted because Trump knew he was coming in and is covering his tracks ahead of time.

I think it's a sense of Kamala's not getting in, so we need to delete anything that's incriminating on us.

But for that to be true, you have to ignore the fact that, for example, Trump was very good friends with Epstein and more information about that keeps coming out.

You've got to ignore the fact that Alan Dershowitz was Epstein's lawyer and Trump's lawyer.

The number of connections between Epstein and the powerful on the Republican side.

Like, sure, also the Democrats, Epstein liked to collect powerful people, but a lot of those powerful people are currently in the corridors of power.

And maybe those are the ones that could feel threat from some of this.

And that's what we're sort of seeing with Trump's desperate attempts to deflect from any questions about Epstein currently.

And what's so funny is they got to bring up the gap in time between when Trump got elected and when there was like the time between Trump getting elected and Trump taking office is somehow they cleared the books.

Epstein killed himself and was prosecuted during Trump's first administration, right?

So

they're talking about this sort of like four years plus a little bit of extra time to squash any books.

Well, what the hell did Trump know beforehand?

It was his DOJ that wound up prosecuting him the second time.

Like, get the fuck out of here with that.

They're just misremembering.

It's because Joe doesn't understand.

What he wants is a narrative that he wants and he's going to find any pieces which is why he was so shocked when he was like oh it was six years ago it was six years ago yeah that's when trump was in office There's a really weird thing going on with the timeline, especially from right-wing sides of the media on a number of issues.

I saw an interesting clip of Bill O'Reilly talking on a TV show saying about how it's Biden's fault that, you know, that Epstein died under Biden's watch.

And they had to fact-check him live and say, no, it was under Trump.

And equally, people like Joe and the more extreme anti-vaxx side of the right-wing coalition currently

will pin all of their blame, for want of a better word for the vaccine, on Joe Biden, even though it was developed

under Trump.

So then just the dates of when things happened are being massaged and manipulated in memory in order to fit the better narrative of Biden and the Democrats are awful and Trump is a golden king who can do no wrong.

And that's the problem with a non-fact-based media, right?

That's the real problem is that people start filling in whatever blanks they want when you start not reporting facts out to people, when you start massaging things to fit your narrative, then you're really going to have a real hard time.

You have to remember all those other things that fit in in order to make your conspiracy work.

And you have to remove the things that don't.

And when they don't remove those things, then it doesn't actually work.

And they get stuck like Bill O'Reilly, where he's trying to, well, wait a minute.

What?

What are you saying?

And he said it.

I watched that clip.

He says it three times in a row.

He's fat checked three straight times in a row to his face until he finally admits, oh, yeah, you're right.

It happened under Biden.

Okay, this is the last bit.

And this is a moment that Jamie breaks in with some news.

It's very important news.

It's the greatest thing.

Since we were talking about fake news, this is going to come up because it's been going on since we've been recording here.

Uh-oh.

Elon and Trump seem to be in a little bit of a spat, Joe.

You want to check the tweet that Elon just put out a little bit ago.

Time to drop the really big bomb.

Donald Trump is in the Epstein files.

That's the real reason they have not been made public.

Have a nice day.

Jesus Christ.

I'm not participating in any of that conversation.

What it is with Elon.

Have a nice day, DJD.

Someone should take his phone away.

They're going back and forth about different things.

Yeah.

Well, he said he was disappointed in Elon.

Yeah, I told him to leave.

Jesus Christ, that's a crazy thing to say.

How does he know?

Does he know that Donald Trump is in the Epstein files?

Does he have access to the Epstein files?

I don't know how he would, but I'm just staying out of the Trump-Elon thing.

That's way outside of the film.

What the fuck are they doing?

I know my lane, and that ain't it.

I just don't.

I mean, I understand he owns Twitter.

I think it's bad for your mental health.

I think posting things public all day and arguing with people all day is bad for you.

Well, you raise a great point.

Sorry to cut you off.

Go ahead.

Yeah, it's probably Twitter's fault, actually.

I think that's the real take-home message here is Twitter's bad.

That's what we should really be focusing on.

This is Cash, who earlier in this conversation conversation is saying, I'll give you me cash, the cash Patel, I'll give you full transparency on Epstream.

There is not a lead I want cheers down.

Just give me the

tail numbers of the planes and I will chase that down.

Him is saying the possibility that his boss is compromised in this, not my lane.

Sorry, I know it's not my lane.

That is not my lane.

Head of the FBI who's investigating this, that is not my lane if my boss happens to be involved with this sex predator.

That's a great point, Martian.

If that doesn't tell you that he is just a cooperative body in a big boy seat, nothing will, right?

You are literally there because

you will not stir the pot.

You will not get to the bottom of anything.

It doesn't matter what it is.

Whatever your bosses tell you is what you need to do.

And that's exactly what he's doing right here.

And if that doesn't tell you, nothing will.

I also

need to say.

My favorite part is the end.

I mean, he's like, you know, you raised a good point.

Sorry to cut you off, but I really want to change the subject right now because I feel very uncomfortable.

I really have to talk about Twitter because the tweets that I get, oh my God, it's so mean.

Let's talk about that for a while, Joe.

Let's not talk about me completely ignoring.

a lead about somebody involved with Jeffrey Epstein.

And they said, I will do everything for the victims of these most horrendous crimes.

These horrendous crimes, I'll stop at nothing unless it happens to look up the chain, in which case I'll stop my eyes at horizontal.

My neck doesn't angle back.

Exactly.

All right, we're going to take a short break and then we're going to move on to our undercard.

From unsolved mysteries to unexplained phenomena, from comedy goal to relationship fails, Amazon Music's got the most ad-free top podcasts, included with Prime.

Because the only thing that should interrupt your listening is,

well, nothing.

Download the Amazon Music app today.

Imagine you're a business owner relying on a dozen different software programs, each one disconnected, more expensive, and more complicated than the last.

It can be incredibly stressful, right?

Now, picture Odo.

Odo brings all the tools your business needs into one simple platform.

CRM, accounting, inventory, manufacturing, marketing, HR, and more.

All seamlessly connected.

Everything works together, giving you the peace of mind that your business is running smoothly from every angle.

Odo's open source applications are user-friendly and designed to scale with your business, saving you time and money.

Say goodbye to juggling multiple platforms and hello to efficient integrated management.

Stop wasting resources on complicated systems and make the switch to Odo today.

Visit odo.com.

ODOO.com and discover how Odo can simplify and streamline your business operations.

Odo, Modern Management Made Simple.

The Sports Leader invites you to play our secret contest, the 49ers season kickoff.

One grand prize winner will score two tickets to the 49ers home season opener September 21st against Arizona.

Plus, $250 in Niners merch.

The more you play, the more chances you have to win.

So listen weekdays from 6 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

between 5 and 20 past the hour for our city shoutout.

Then text that city to 415-808-KNBR for your chance to win.

Visit theesportsleader.com/slash secret contest for details from the sports leader.

Well, it's just factually inaccurate on so many different levels.

I don't understand why you wrote it like that.

So for the undercard this time, we're going to be talking about Cash Patel's time and his brand new role at the FBI, what he's done, what he's doing, sort of like he's come in to give a progress report.

And this is the progress report he brings to Joe to talk to all his Joe's fans about.

So we're going to get started with Cash cash at very early on, literally seconds into the show.

He talks about the changes at the FBI.

I didn't know we would be able to do it this quickly is my surprise.

And that what that showed me was the people at the bureau, literally people who've been there 30-year agents.

They're coming up to me and be like, dude, we wanted to do that 15 years ago.

Really?

We wanted to do that 10 years ago.

And my question was like, you guys are the pros.

Like, I'm just, my job as the director, I'm not chasing down bad guys.

I don't know how to do that.

It's to give them what you need and get the hell out of the way.

And they were like, dude, all they did was get in the way.

So what kind of stuff

specifically did you start doing that they wanted to do 15 years ago?

Simple.

The one that I've taken the biggest heat for.

You know, when I said, hey, there are, these are the statistics from the USG.

So you can take them or leave them, right?

I don't know where else to go because nobody else does these, right?

In the last calendar year, not this one, the year before last, 100,000 people were dying of drug overdoses a year.

That's one every seven minutes.

A child or kid was being raped every six and a half minutes in this country.

And there were two homicides an hour in this country.

And we have a 38,000 person workforce.

And I said, okay,

where are the agents?

Where are Intel analysts?

Where is everybody?

We got 55 field offices.

We got 300 what we call RAs, resident agencies.

So satellite offices to field offices in major cities.

And they said, well, we've got 11,000 FBI employees in what we call the NCR, the national capital region.

So if you take DC and you do a 50-mile, 60-mile radius around it, 11,000, almost a third of the workforce work there.

And I said, what the hell are they doing there?

They said, well, they mandated if you want a promotion, if you want to move up, you got to come back here and prioritize stuff here.

So I said, look, we're moving agents and intel analysts to the field.

And that's what I did.

1,500 people are going to the field because a third of the crime doesn't happen in Washington, D.C.

and the 65 miles around it.

And everybody was like, we've been wanting to do this forever.

This is a long clip.

We've got to talk about a lot of it, Marsh.

I just want to start by mentioning I really am super leery when law enforcement guys say the words bad guys.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

And I know that we can suggest that crime is bad and that the person doing it is bad, but to say chasing down bad guys sounds like the person you're looking for is already bad.

The other possibility is they're the wrong person that you find.

And that's an important piece to remember.

I always feel like the people who say bad guys really are in love with the idea of what they do and not in love with the idea of what they how they should be treating the American people.

I want to mention too that the FBI's website, now I went to their website because he mentions all this stuff that they do.

And I thought, well, what exactly does

the FBI do?

So in their order, here's what they say on the website.

Here's what they handle.

Terrorism, violent crime, cyber crime, transnational, organized crime, counterintelligence, weapons of mass destruction, civil rights, public corruption, and white-collar crime.

Now, of those, not a lot jumps off the page for on-location types of operations.

I mean, violent crime, sure, I can understand that, but we probably need people in those places for the

crimes that take place to do investigations, et cetera.

But he said that there was already people all over the country.

A lot of the other ones are like tech crimes and terrorism.

That doesn't feel like there's a place that you could send people.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I'm not an expert in fighting fighting crime, but the FBI aren't the ones handling day-to-day crime.

Yeah.

Right.

So it doesn't make sense to deploy them to the field.

If there are violent crime hotspots, that feels like something for the police until you find there's a massive organized kind of element of it.

And that's when you send the FBI in to try and investigate the organized sort of part of it.

Also, deploying analysts to the field seems odd.

Like that seems like a thing.

I'm not an expert in this at all, but it feels like you could do that from the main kind of area where you can like collaborate with people.

I thought the whole point of the Federal Bureau of Investigations is that they were national and they could go where the major crimes were.

If there's a location for the crime, you send them there for that investigation.

And when the investigation is done, they come back and then they go elsewhere.

You don't need to have them stationed in the hotspot as a kind of deterrent.

Yeah.

And a lot of the crimes he's mentioning, they're done by local law enforcement, like you suggest, right?

Like the DEA is handling drug stuff.

The local and state law is handling that stuff.

The FBI doesn't do that kind of work most of the time.

They're going after the criminal enterprises, not the sort of boots on the ground, sort of drug crime stuff and sexual assault stuff and murder stuff.

I feel like that's stated for shock value.

And the reason why I think that is the numbers that he uses, right?

When he's saying, you know, that these numbers, he's trying to say these numbers that sort of shock you.

But when you think about it, there's a little over 525,000 minutes in a year.

And then if you take the population of 370 million, they do something at tens of thousands of times a year across the entire country.

You can make it ominous when you divide it by that 525,000.

So you can say something like, this many minutes elapse before a crime happens.

But you're taking a gigantic population across a huge space and you're saying, well, every six minutes, you know, a child is sexually assaulted.

You're like, well, there's 370 million people across a wide space, across a long time.

We're people who live in a moment in time in one particular place.

And so when we hear these numbers, we think, wow, around me right now, there is two of these things or six of these.

Every six minutes, something like this is happening.

You're stretching it out over an entire country.

So you're making that number sound really big when it's just a pretty, I mean, it's not a pretty average number.

It's a bad number.

I'm not saying it's a good number.

Yeah, yeah.

But I am saying like you're making it sound more ominous than it is.

Yeah, absolutely.

And he's also presenting, the reason he's presenting it that way is to to make it seem like before him, the FBI was just failing to do their job.

That's why those numbers are so bad.

That's his narrative, that America was this crime-ridden place, and the FBI were just too tied to office-chasing promotion.

They were, you know, tied in, they were in the office, they were just looking for a promotion at all times.

And then later, he'll also claim that they were hamstrung by DEI, and that was also what was stopping them doing their job.

But then he came along and he fixed it with some just good old common sense.

And his narrative is that, well, he's doing the things that we've been wanting to do this for 15 years but the big wigs who used to run us didn't let us it's all a bit and then everyone clapped it's it's got that kind of feel to it sure does sure does and yeah and he's trying to just justify i mean one of the he said this is one of the things i got heat from right early on he got heat for spending too little time in the office and spending time and resources re relocating the agency that could have been spent on actually fighting crime that was kind of the the things he was getting heat for and this is his his justification excuse for this essentially yeah and i you know the one thing about people coming up to him and congratulating him or thanking him for changing things you know one of the things that that strikes me is when you take dei out dei is sort of uh allowing everyone to be in the pool for our sort of merit-based promotions if you take that away that leaves a lot of room for nepotism And so people coming up and kissing his ass and saying, man, we've wanted to do this for so long.

You're the best, Cash Patel.

Wink, wink, wink.

That might be a true story in the sense that people are just kissing his ass and he's easily duped by flattery and that he's just thinking like, oh, yeah, I'm doing a great job.

And the guy who told me he's going to did a great job, he might be moving up in the world.

Yeah, exactly.

He got the job through ass kissing and now he's going to give other people jobs through ass kissing.

It's an ass kissing based economy.

Yeah.

FBI is human centipede.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Okay.

So now we're going to talk a little bit about fentanyl.

There's a recurring theme that comes up throughout the undercard.

So fentanyl, right?

Everybody's like, how do you attack fentanyl?

How do you stop this stuff?

Okay.

Yes, let's go after the gangs, excuse me, the narco-terrorists down in Mexico.

100%.

You got to go after the cartels, the drug trafficking organizations.

You got to shore up the southern border.

And the president has done an amazing job at both of those things, made it a priority.

So we have decreased the amount of fentanyl moved around, let's say, right?

But not necessarily coming into the United States.

So where's the root of the problem?

The CCP.

So, the fentanyl precursors, the stuff you need to make fentanyl comes from mainland China.

That's it.

Now, I'm sure like 1% of it comes from somewhere else in the world, but that's where it comes.

They've got hundreds of companies standing up in mainland China shipping this stuff out into the world.

Now, their cover is that fentanyl has and it does have a legitimate lawful purpose in terms of an anesthetic or medical use for anesthesiology related stuff.

Okay.

So there's like a minimal use for it.

And what the CCP has done is they've come out and said, this is like the biggest, like, talk about the devil pulling the wool over the world's eyes.

They're like, we don't make fentanyl.

They're right.

They don't.

They just give you all the ingredients for it and ship it to Mexico.

And then what they did was to trick the world, they came out and said, hey, we're going to not sell.

precursor X.

They're like, so now we're out of the fentanyl trade entirely.

The problem is there's 14 other precursors you can use to make fentanyl, and they're still shipping all of those.

So what we did when I got to the Bureau is we stood up this massive enterprise to go after fentanyl precursor companies in mainland China.

And they're probably not going to like that.

And what they're doing now to get cute is they're shipping that stuff not straight to here.

They're going to places like India.

And I'm also.

doing operations in India.

And they're having the Mexican cartels now make this fentanyl down in Mexico still.

But you know, instead of going right up the southern border and into America, you know what they're doing?

They're flying it into Vancouver.

They're taking the precursors up to Canada, manufacturing it up there, and doing their global distribution routes from up there because we were being so effective down south.

Yeah, so they're suggesting that strengthening the southern border didn't solve the problems that they set on the campaign trail.

We know that it didn't work because they had to resort to tariffs against Mexico in order to try to slow that process down.

Yeah, exactly.

And his point is that the continuation of supply of illegal fentanyl into America is proof that their border operations were working so well.

You know, we did such a good job.

They had to do something to work around it, which is why you've noticed almost no appreciable difference.

And that's evidence of how good we've been doing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And also, just notice, he keeps talking about the CCP.

He's conflating China as a country and as an industrial base, a manufacturing base with the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party.

And, you it's very true, the precursors of fentanyl come from China.

That's because a lot of stuff comes from China.

If you look around your room, it's probably got a lot of stuff that came from China.

A lot of medical supplies come from China.

Fentanyl is a medical supply.

It's a medical grade sedative.

Here in the NHS, it gets used to treat severe pain in hospitals.

It's on prescription.

It's heavily controlled and it's imported from China, or at least the constituent chemicals are imported from China.

So just because something is exported by a Chinese company doesn't necessarily make it part of a plot by the Chinese government to undermine the West.

Timu isn't a front for the CCP takeover, other than their ongoing economic need to out-compete you and us in manufacturing.

That's what Timu is really a front for.

And he'll go even further on this kind of wild conspiracy theory that it's the Chinese government deliberately pushing fentanyl into America.

Well, let's continue with that.

Here's the next clip.

Part of it is Americans just don't understand the depth and depravity of fentanyl.

But what's worse is fentanyl, you don't hear fentanyl deaths in China.

You don't hear fentanyl debts in India.

You don't really hear fentanyl debts in England, Australia, New Zealand, or Five Eyes partners in Canada.

The Chinese, in my opinion, the CCP, have used it as a directed approach because we are their adversary and they don't like us and we don't like what they're doing when it comes to fentanyl.

And their long-term game is this.

How do I, in my opinion, kneecap the United States of America, our largest adversary?

Well, why don't we go and take out generations of young men and women who might grow up to serve in the United States military or become a cop or become a teacher?

And that's what they're doing when you wipe out tens of thousands of Americans a year.

It's a long-term plan for them.

And what he's talking about here, it is just pure conspiracist thinking.

This is why it should be a massive concern to everybody that Cash Patel is the head of the FBI.

He's got this narrative that China invented the fentanyl crisis in order to weaken the United States military and police service.

And I think even the fact that he's highlighting the military, police, teachers, it shows that he sees this as an attack on America's structures of authority.

You know, these aren't people.

They're not victims.

They're potential struts in America's power structure.

And they're being targeted by China and they're they're precursors to addictive drugs in order to weaken the American state.

But his version of the world

has to be that China wants to destroy America's military might.

So they come up with some chemicals, forge partnerships with Mexican cartels.

As a government, they reach out to the Mexican cartels, forge partnerships, feed synthetic drugs into America, get people hooked, and therefore those people no longer enlist in the military sort of dot, dot, dot, profit.

You know, it's like, think how many steps there are to that that plan.

And then look how little agency is attributed to anything within America for the fentanyl issue.

You know, it is China.

It is targeting America specifically.

But the thing is, the fentanyl issue in America

wasn't caused by China targeting America.

It was caused by the opioid crisis.

You know, pharma companies pushing opioids, painkillers to Americans for everything, essentially, to make vast sums of money and getting huge numbers of people hooked on oxy and various other things.

Once that got uncovered, fentanyl stepped into that gap.

That's why there's a really a fentanyl problem in the US.

It's why there isn't a fentanyl problem in the UK.

We didn't have that opioid problem, so there wasn't a need for it to fill.

There's no addiction crisis that it's kind of feeding into.

I found a stat on this from the British Journal of Pain.

In the US, the death rate for synthetic opioids, excluding methadone, was 21.4 people per 100,000 population in 2021.

So 21 out of 100,000.

In comparison, the fentanyl rate of death in England was 0.223 per 100,000 in 2021.

And one of the predictive factors for rates of fentanyl overdose in the US was the rate of opioid prescribing.

That is what's going on here.

It's not that the Chinese Communist Party have decided to destroy the American military with fentanyl.

It's that lax regulation allow big pharma to run wild with the opioid crisis.

And the lack of safety net means people aren't being picked up and helped.

So, next up, they're going to talk about what these drug producers are doing with fentanyl to attract people.

Then, the drug trafficking organizations, to make it appealing for the youth, shape this illicit narcotic in the form of like candy and gummy bears.

So, you hear about kids in New York who just happen to have like a trace amount touching it somewhere, also dying from it.

So, they have absolutely no rules or boundaries whatsoever when it comes to how they deploy fentanyl.

It could be through another drug, it could be through a synthetic, it could be through a fake drug, or it could be like, hey, and we've seized it, thousands of pounds of material that looks like candy.

Are they doing it specifically to try to get people to overdose on candy or are they selling this candy as a drug?

They're selling it as a drug.

Okay.

And they're just saying it looks like candy.

It just looks appealing to kids, right?

Like, so inner city youth, they're like, hey,

put a pill down down on the table, put a gummy bear down on the table.

You know, a younger person to be like, oh, that's cool.

Let me try that.

I mean, I can tell you stories from now until the entire show about high school kids on the verge of graduating, and they went out and took a pill that they thought was, you know, an upper, but it happened to be laced with fentanyl.

They died.

Their parents are calling.

They're destroyed.

And people are like, well, we got to go after the drug traffickers.

I'm like, we do and we are.

I think, I know you've got some fact check on this, but before we do that, just there's a point he says at the start there.

You know, they shaped this illicit narcotic into the form of candy and gummy bears.

So you hear about kids in New York who might just have happened to have a trace amount touching it somewhere, also dying from it.

Those are two completely different statements.

Yes.

You know, shaping fentanyl into a gummy bear is completely different to you've got something which happened to touch a trace of it somewhere.

He's putting those two things together, smashing them together as if it's the same thing.

And those are two very different situations.

And I think that's an important thing point to make.

Yeah.

And the only story I could find about this was from 2022.

They're talking, it was the administration back then, this is during the Biden administration, the DEA suggested that there was a thing called rainbow fentanyl, and they warned that pills were a deliberate scheme by drug cartels to sell addictive fentanyl to children and young people.

Although the agency doesn't mention it, now this came out during Halloween.

The agency doesn't mention Halloween specifically.

People remain alarmed this holiday following the DEA's warning.

What really happened was they said this around Halloween.

People were like, they're going to feed it to our kids.

And then there are million stories came out about it being fed the kids.

But the only real official one I could find was this.

Yeah, I found a couple of small stories.

So I found a story about two people in Virginia who were arrested after seven primary school children experienced a reaction to ingesting gummy bears because those gummy bears had been in a bag that was like that had traces of fentanyl in it.

And it appears to me that the Swedes were put into a bag that had previously had some sort of fentanyl in it, rather than fentanyl being shaped into gummy bears and killing kids.

And that's obviously bad, but it sounds like negligence and bad luck rather than the deliberate dosing of candies to target children.

I also found another story on a police website in Canada, which claimed that they seized 51 doses of fentanyl that were molded into gummy bear shapes.

And that was actually from the 15th of July, so just last week as of recording.

But there's no corroboration of this story outside of just reprints of the police press release.

And there's lots of reasons why it's best not to assume that a police press release is exactly to be taken at face value until it's been corroborated by other sources or backed up in court because the police will put forward their version of what the arrest was.

And then you wait till these things get to court and you find out what the actual evidence is.

So, like, maybe the story pans out, maybe it won't pan out rather.

But even if we accept those two cases accurate, that's not enough in terms of number of stories to, quote, fill the entire show, as Cash Patel is is claiming here.

Drug overdoses are incredibly bad.

Don't get me wrong, they are.

But you've got to put into context: there were 22

high school-aged adolescents who died per week in the US in 2022

due to fentanyl, compared to more than twice as many who died in car accidents.

So we're talking about half as prevalent as car accidents, and we should treat it seriously, but we should be treating it about half as seriously in terms of the time and effort and media attention and Joe Rogan attention we give to the car accident fatality rate.

Yeah.

All right.

So now we're talking about, now he's going to shift.

He's going to start talking about the Department of Defense and their collaboration with them.

And this is that piece.

So the DOD has this thing called CONOPs, concept of operations.

The Department of Defense has 3 million employees, and a CONOP is how you move the machine of the Department of Defense.

Hey, we have a threat in Indo-Paycom.

How many carrier groups are we sending down there?

We got a threat with government X.

What are we doing operationally, kinetically?

What are we doing intelligence collection?

That's a con-a.

The first concept of operation that the Biden administration launched at the Department of Defense was on climate change.

You can't make this shit up.

What do you think that's all about?

Like as an outsider, as someone like looking at it, going, I just don't understand.

Like, where's the profit in this?

Like, what, what is, what's the motive?

Like, what would incentivize all these people to get on board with it without someone logically stepping in and saying, hey, this is not our top priority?

I think it's

so that was something I tried to answer when I was out of government for the last four years before I took this job.

And the answer laid in the first Trump term.

We were doing things so effectively on national security that hadn't been done before in such speed and volume that the media hated us for it because

the other party had tried to do it and failed

indeed yeah indeed um this is this is ridiculous but i think it's an interesting exchange they're talking about climate change and why it was kind of put in as a priority biden biden recognized that climate change is an existential threat

why did he do that well joe can't possibly understand what that motive could be what profit is there in it why would climate change be a priority well maybe joe it's because climate change is real you're coming from the assumption that it's not real so why why would anybody do this because they think it's real and we're seeing evidence of that you know the flooding in texas just a few weeks ago a few a week a few weeks ago and a few weeks after this interview was actually uh aired were an excellent illustration of what makes climate change such a priority for protecting the lives of americans of course it's an existential threat but instead cash patel essentially mimes scratching his head and comes up with the idea that well it was the media who were just They were getting jealous of just how much Trump and his team had been winning.

And that's why the media and the Biden administration did this because they were just so jealous about how great King Trump was.

Yeah.

Neither of these men are serious on this issue at all.

They move on there.

They talk a little bit about their successes.

One of the successes they bring up is that supposedly that Trump during his first term rescued over 50 hostages and detainees from around the world.

And that was more than every president combined.

I'm not going to play the whole clip, but essentially he's lying.

There's literally a 52-person release from the Iran hostage.

That's one time.

He's saying combined.

it's like one time they beat Trump.

So he's just lying about numbers.

But then they get to this part where they're talking about the Catholics and there's a memo at the FBI that they want to talk about.

We just rolled out the Catholic memo, the truth about that.

What is that?

The last administration, the FBI wrote a memo targeting Catholics.

Remember the Richmond Catholic memo?

I don't remember that.

Okay, so basically

there was a write-up from the FBI relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is like the modern-day fusion GPS,

and basically said Catholics should be targeted as domestic terrorists.

Yeah.

So then Chris Ray, the former FBI director, went to Capitol Hill and testified about it.

And the Congress was like, wait a second, is this real?

Is it predicated on actual fact?

And how wide is it?

Is it one office?

Is it all these people across the country?

Are Catholics being targeted as domestic terrorists?

And what ended up happening was Ray said, oh, it's just one office, one memo, nothing to see here.

Well, what we just roll out again to Congress this week to Chuck Grassley, who put it out, was that in fact, it was multiple offices, multiple memos that were weaponizing law enforcement to target a religious group during an election cycle.

And we proved it.

And now everybody has read it.

Why were they targeting the Catholics?

I don't know.

You'd have to ask the people that got here before I did.

Did you have any suspicion of what kind of motivation they would have to do that?

I think when you use, it goes back to Russia Gate.

If you're willing to use Mickey Mouse journalism, if you're willing to use the fusion GPS and Christopher Steele's of the world, like the leadership at the FBI then did, then it has a chance to replicate itself.

And that's what happened.

That is such a ridiculous non-answer to that question, which we'll come to.

But just to begin with, there, he says the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, is like the modern-day fusion GPS.

That is so deep into conspiracy talk.

It is incomprehensible.

You have to decode it with a Rosetta Stone or something.

The SPLC was set up in 1971 as a non-profit to track civil rights abuses.

Fusion GPS is a private political oppositional research company set up in 2011.

They're not the same.

And the SPLC being 40 years earlier isn't the modern day version of Fusion GPS.

That's just a ridiculous thing to say.

Yeah, they want to say that they're both creating propaganda because they want to be able to dismiss out of hand exactly what they're saying.

Yeah.

And

I found this article from New York Times.

I'm going to quote from it.

Quote, the assessment by the Justice Department's watchdog found that the agents in the FBI's office in Richmond, Virginia improperly conflated the religious beliefs of activists with the likelihood that they would engage in domestic terrorism, making it appear as if they were targeted for their faith.

Yeah, and that sounds bad, right?

Even to begin with, but I found a news story that explained that there was this memo in which an analyst at the FBI's Richmond division said that radical traditional Catholics are typically characterized by the rejection of the Second Vatican Council, adding that the ideology can include an adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.

And while the memo differentiated between The memo actually

differentiated between radical traditionalist Catholics as separate and distinct distinct from just traditionalist Catholics or Catholics who simply prefer the traditional Latin Mass or pre-Vatican II teachings.

Some accuse the Bureau of labeling Catholics as a whole as a threat, unfairly scrutinizing the Bureau, unscrutinizing their worship, and accusing the Biden administration of orchestrating improper religious surveillance.

So that's what we're talking about here.

We're not talking, as Cachatel wants Joe to believe, and Joe does believe because Cache Patel says it.

We're not talking about targeting regular Catholics, people who happen happen to be Catholic, or even people who are a particular sect of Catholicism.

We're talking specifically about the people who share, for example, Mel Gibson's extreme version of Catholicism that rejects

Vatican II, that has a very separatist kind of version of things.

I'm just putting my head because Cash apparently doesn't know what this is about.

He's boasting here that his office just rolled out the truth about this to Congress.

But when asked why they were doing this, he's like, oh, I don't know.

You'd have to ask somebody else.

I don't know.

I didn't look into it.

Well, I've looked into it a tiny bit, Cash, and I'm not even at the FBI, and I can see what the difference is here.

Yeah, exactly, Marsh.

There was a 120-day review of the incident

ordered by Congress, and Michael E.

Horowitz, the department's inspector general, drawing from the FBI report and interviews conducted by his own investigations, found no evidence of anyone ordered or directed anyone to investigate Catholics because of their religion.

And it's interesting that we spent the beginning half of this talking about Epstein

and a sort of giant pedophile ring when they're talking about the Catholic Church, the biggest pedophile ring in modern times, and they don't even bring that up at all.

I just think that that's a funny juxtaposition of these two moments in the tape.

No, I agree, but also in terms of funny juxtapositions, I love the fact that they're talking about the idea that Joe Biden's administration was attacking all Catholics as terrorists.

Joe Biden,

his administration was doing that.

It's a bit like saying Donald Trump's administration was going to make adultery illegal.

I don't think that's a decision they're going to make for very obvious reasons.

That's amazing.

Okay, so there's another clip here.

I'm not going to play it, but it's a long clip talking about what they should have done during January 6th.

He's talking about how President Trump had authorized 20,000 National Guards women and men, and

he says that Nancy Pelosi refused it.

I found a fact check.

We'll link to it in the show notes.

But I found a fact check that basically disputes this and says

the Speaker of the House has no power.

They can't do this stuff.

They can't just, they don't get to decide who's at the Capitol.

They're trying to pin this all on Nancy Pelosi.

It's not her place to say, yes or no, you should bring 10,000 National Guard troops up.

And he ends it by saying something like, if I had 10,000 of my guys there, do you think things would have gone differently on January 6th?

And I'm like, dude, you think January 6th was a conspiracy?

What are you talking about?

Like, how would it have gone different?

The only way it would have gone different is Donald Trump would have won.

That's what would have happened if you had 10,000 of your people there.

So I'll link in the show notes to the dispatch article.

But again, there's two moments in this where Cash is constantly just, he's just outright lying.

He's telling lies about what the previous administration did to try to make his stay as an FBI director look even more like heroic.

So here's the last clip in our undercard section.

And that's the thing about your show that

I agreed that I wanted to do it is because getting out to a population that has stopped listening to mainstream news and reaching out to them and challenging them with information and how we're doing things and saying, look, this is our priorities.

This is what I'm doing is so hugely important because the audience, the influence of that manpower on the electorate is huge, is huge.

And if we can reach through on certain, some of these issues, then we're going to win collectively.

Like I can only arrest so many bad guys, then we will.

But if we arrest them and people don't know who we're arresting and why we're arresting them and what the threat is, then it almost becomes irrelevant.

We're still going to do it.

We're not going to stop.

But if we can get more and more people talking about these things and saying, look, the national security of our country is of what's utmost importance to me, not who wins the next election, but also we need to work with our communities to say who's in our communities.

How many registered sex offenders are there near our schools?

Are they violating federal laws?

Why aren't we on

these priorities?

And we need help.

We need American buy-in to really accomplish the mission.

So I think really this sums up so much.

This is Cash Cratel showing his hand.

He is on Rogan specifically to whitewash the reputation of the work that he's doing here at the FBI and to sell the lies that we've heard him sell.

This isn't podcasting, it's propaganda.

He's bypassing the mainstream news.

He's talking to people who will listen to what's been said on Rogan.

And, you know, as ever, as curious as Joe is, and as much as he asks questions all the way through, he always lacks the curiosity of asking the very obvious question: Is the guy sat opposite me right now lying to my face?

Is he full of shit?

Could he be completely wrong about these things?

Is he deluded?

Is his version of things accurate or not?

These are the questions Joe never ever asks.

And it's why we end up in mess after mess after mess, episode after episode.

It's interesting that Joe is sort of, at least his early episodes that we've partaken of, he almost feels like he's sort of this outsider asking questions, looking in.

He's always constantly this outsider.

And now, since he's the one who sort of in some ways helped Donald Trump get the presidency by broadcasting him on his show and all of the people who were in his network, you know, Gabbard,

he's got Vance on, Musk on,

you know, Peter Thiel, who, you know, pushed a lot of the same ideas, et cetera.

Mark Andreessen was on talking about how great things are, et cetera, et cetera.

So we have him sort of pushing this sort of narrative that got these people in power.

And he sort of had this really interesting shift to almost state-sponsored media by having these powerful people on that are able to come on, like he suggests, for a long time to talk uninterrupted about these points and not have any pushback.

And this is, I mean, this is essentially just state-sponsored propaganda.

If you're talking to the main people and you're not going to hold them to account for the power that they have.

Yeah, there's a reason Capitell wants to go on Rogan and doesn't want to go on

one of the main NBC News or whatever kind of news channel, because he knows he's not going to get pushback from Brogen.

Yeah.

I'm the last person that thinks I'm smart.

Trust me.

Okay, Marsh.

Anything good in this?

I think I do believe that the FBI doesn't have footage of various clients of Epstein committing crimes.

I think I do believe that they probably would have

prosecuted those crimes if they had the ability and identifiable people in them.

I think I believe that.

And one of the reasons I believe that is because this is Cash Patel.

He's looking for conspiracies everywhere.

And if he had the opportunity to make, hey, about my FBI is the one that's prosecuting these high-ranking Democrats or whatever, I think he'd do that.

I don't think that absolves Donald Trump at all because we've seen pretty clearly he has no interest in picking at that particular thread.

But yeah, at least I believe him in those bits.

I don't think Joe's audience will, but for very different reasons.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And it's interesting that you say that because there's another part of me that knows that this is a very vindictive and uh ready-to-attack Department of Justice.

And if they had anything at all, they would go after anyone that they possibly could.

Yeah.

They thought if they had anything, like a lot of people like seem to love to connect Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein.

And there is a connection.

I'm not going to deny that they've been in photos together.

They traveled on a jet together.

They did things together.

But I will say that as much as people want to tie those two together and make it seem like Clinton was a person who was using Jeffrey Epstein for his

the way in which he treated young girls, if that evidence existed at all and it was in the Department of Justice hands.

Don't you think that they would have used it by now?

Yeah, exactly.

I mean,

this is an administration that is trying to find reasons to arrest President Obama.

So they would find something if they could.

Ironically, I believe him for that reason.

Yeah.

Trust me, Parole.

I trust him, not because I think he's trustworthy, but because I think he's untrustworthy and would have used it if he had it.

He would have used it.

Exactly.

That's exactly it.

I guess my something good is for the two hours that he was talking to Joe, he didn't fuck up the FBI somehow.

So like he was busy.

Like somebody talked to him for a little while and they kept him busy for a little while and he didn't do bad things.

And so I guess that's the positive that I worked out of this.

And also from a health perspective, this was two hours of uninterrupted video at no point at which did he take any bathroom breaks to come back sniffing.

So, like, maybe this also was good for his health, uh, too.

I don't know.

Yeah.

All right.

So that is going to wrap it up for this week.

Remember, you can access more than a half hour of bonus content each week for as little as a dollar an episode by subscribing at patreon.com slash knowrogan.

Meanwhile, you can hear more of me at cognitive dissonance and citation needed.

And you can hear more from Marsh at Skeptics with a K and the Skeptic podcast.

And we'll be back next week for a little more to know Rogan experience.

If you love the show, please rate and share it.

If you want to get in touch with us, become a patron, or check out the show notes, go to knowrogan.com.

K-N-O-W-R-O-G-A-N.com.

Less carbs, more crushing it.

That's what you get with Egg Life Egg White Wraps.

When your schedule awakens from its summer slumber, turn every meal into a chance to level up your protein game.

We're talking Bring It On Breakfast Tacos, Ready to Roll Wraps, and Power Packed PBJs.

Egg Life Egg White Wraps, the winning play in your mealtime playbook.

Egg Life, sneaky protein.

Find us chilling in the fridge at Aldi, Target, Whole Foods, and more.

Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast.

I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% Happier.

The goal is to help you do your life better.

The series is called Reset.

It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life.

Each week, we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career.

We're going to bring on top-notch scientists and world-class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice.

It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality.

10% happier is self-help for smart people.

Come join the party.