( -0968 ) O'Keefe Bombshell (Ambient Noise Removal) - DOJ Contractor Glenn Prager Told OMG Spy Epstein Witnesses Saw Clinton Rape Flights - DOJ Rebuttal w Lara Logan

( -0968 ) O'Keefe Bombshell (Bar Noise Removal) - DOJ Contractor Glenn Prager Told Date He Had Access to Epstein Witnesses - DOJ Rebuttal w Lara Logan

OMG, Bombshell, O'Keefe, Epstein, Glenn, Prager, DOJ, Contractor, FBI, witness, witnesses, Trump, Clinton, rape, flight, lolita express, lolita x-press, Lara, Logan, Jimmy, Savile, Yorkshire, Ripper, Alex Jones, Hitler, mustache

TRANSCRIPTION:

It's not talked about yet, but it soon came out that he was a CIA officer.
He was a CIA officer?
He was a CIA officer.
I think he's protecting a lot of other people.
He's not protecting himself because there's nothing there.
But he's protecting a lot of people.
Because Trump's out saying it's a hoax at the case, like a hoax or something.
I mean, you know it's not a hoax.
He's been on the plane many times.
It's just he was never on the plane with the kids.
I've seen the itineraries and I've interviewed all the victims.
There's never been an instance where Trump was on a plane with these kids and a rape occurred.
But that can't be said for a claim.
That can't be said for all this.
While the claims were on the plane, while the real claims were on the plane, there were rapes that occurred.
Overheard at Phoenix Airport on September 8th, 2025, a senior Justice Department investigator who personally worked on the Epstein case tells all.
Glenn Prager, who has reviewed Epstein itineraries and has interviewed Epstein's victims, drops a bombshell.
He says that the DOJ did not want to go after Epstein because he's a CIA asset.
That the evidence from his investigation confirms that Bill Clinton was present for alleged rapes on the Lolita Express.
And that President Trump was not present for the rapes that Glenn Prager investigated.
But that he is protecting a lot of other people that were.
How about this whole Epstein thing?
I worked on that case. I used to interview all the victims.
And in my picture was 20 to 30 victims in Palm Beach that I was interviewing and dealing with.
And then we were ready to go to trial.
And they would flip.
Epstein would just pay them off.
And they were just like, "These little kids."
They're all broke kids and poor families.
So you pay them off anywhere from $150,000 to $500,000.
Nothing in that kind of space.
Prager there describes how the victims that he interviewed were paid off by Epstein right before going to trial.
Prager has worked as an investigator inside the Department of Justice for over 20 years.
According to Prager's LinkedIn About page, it says that during the tenure at DOJ,
Prager served as an inspector overseeing sensitive investigations involving major DOJ components,
including the FBI, DEA, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, ATF, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices.
This seems to corroborate what Prager told us.
He was tasked with interviewing Epstein's rape victims and investigating flight logs.
On his backpack in the airport, we spotted an embroidered FBI patch, which caught the attention of our citizen journalist.
I'll tell you this, because it's not talked about yet, but it soon came out that he was a CIA officer.
He was a CIA.
He was a CIA officer.
Although many have suspected it to be the case, this is the first time a Department of Justice official has confirmed
that Epstein worked for the CIA and is a foreign asset.
So DOJ was set on the case and they were just letting him do house arrests.
They minimized his arrest.
Part of that is because all the victims kept on flipping and they didn't have anyone to go to trial with.
More importantly, they didn't want to go after him.
He was an asset for the United States and Israel for the CIA.
I just know that's what it was.
That's why he was protected so long for this and people turned a blind eye by all this garbage that he was doing in the United States.
He had a lot of secrets.
More about Israeli stuff than anything else.
I mean, he was doing stuff for Israel in the United States.
He was working for both.
Glenn Prager, the Department of Justice investigator on the Epstein case, then talks about whether President Trump was involved.
Many are trying to tie Trump to Epstein, but what Glenn Prager says is that Trump wasn't present during the inappropriate sexual behavior that he was investigating.
But Prager does say that Bill Clinton was.
Backed up by his experience interviewing the victims and reviewing the Epstein-Lolita Express itineraries,
quote, "They killed the Epstein list to protect the Clintons."
They claim that Trump's involved in the rapes and all that stuff, but he wasn't.
I'm not assuming the agenda is.
I've seen the itineraries and I've interviewed all the victims.
There's never been an instance where Trump was on a plane with these kids and a rape occurred.
But that can't be said for Clinton.
That can't be said for others.
I remember that it was being killed because I know Clintons were on there.
The Clintons were on there?
100%. And while the Clintons were on the plane, while Bill Clinton was on the plane, there were rapes that occurred.
And I'm saying Trump, although there were as many flights as there were and all that kind of stuff, and on the island and all that stuff, he was never there during a single election.
But Clinton for sure, and that's where the big cover-up was.
The Department of Justice investigator inside the Trump Justice Department says that while Trump may not have been present during the crimes that Prager investigated,
it is clear that Trump is "protecting" a lot of people.
I don't know what's new that I've never seen that he's so hesitant to now show what's going on.
Now, releasing all his files, I think he's protecting a lot of other people.
He's not protecting himself because there's nothing there, but he's protecting a lot of people.
The citizen journalist boarded American Airlines Flight 1634 and landed in D.C. Monday at 8 o'clock at night
and proceeded to go to dinner with this man, this DOJ investigator, at a restaurant called Blue Duck Tavern.
Glenn Prager dislikes the fact Trump said the Epstein scandal is a hoax,
but he also says, according to the evidence from his investigation, that Trump is not covering up for himself.
Trump's now saying it's a hoax, that the case is a hoax or something.
Come on, you know it's not a hoax. He does a lot of stuff. He's been on the plane many times.
It's just he was never on the plane with a kid.
People want to tie it to him and say he's covering up for himself, but he's not.
Now, this is a very good thing for President Trump and seemingly exonerates him
for many people who claim that he was doing something inappropriate himself.
This dinner went on for an hour and 45 minutes as this Department of Justice investigator
revealed things to a stranger that the leadership of the FBI and the Department of Justice has not.
Prager revealed more information about Trump's hesitation to be fully transparent with the Epstein case,
gave us some details about internal gripes against FBI Director Cash Patel from within the FBI,
and he detailed a developing feud between Cash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
If you'd like to see more of that conversation in the restaurant, you may subscribe to OMG and find it on our website.
Who is like the one name where you're like, "Oh my God"?
Here he is.
Hey there, is this Glenn?
Yes.
You work for the Department of Justice, correct?
No.
You don't work for the Department of Justice.
You had a patch on your backpack that said FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the airport?
Yeah.
And you talked about how you interviewed the Epstein people, all the Epstein victims.
Do you recall that conversation?
No. How can I help you?
I wanted to confirm that you in fact did work for the Department.
Hang on to the phone.
Let's try calling him again.
Glenn?
I'm not talking to you.
I'm not talking to anybody.
You already did speak to my friend.
Now stop talking. I don't know who you are.
I'm a journalist. I need your help, sir.
I'm not talking to you or any journalist about anything.
Did you interview the Epstein victims?
I'm not going to talk to you.
Sir.
On the heels of releasing this story, I wanted to emphasize just how touching it was for me to see Erika Kirk stand on stage in front of those 74,000 people in a stadium
and say that she forgives the assassin who killed her husband, Charlie Kirk.
I actually took this photo standing right in front of her when she did that, and I wept.
The people standing next to me also wept.
In the couple days that followed since that Sunday, it dawned upon me that equally as important as forgiving those who trespass against us
is for those of us the living to achieve justice and accountability for the bad actors behind the scenes corrupting this country.
We must have a Department of Justice that is actually about justice.
If we do not have any accountability for bad actors, good people, even God-fearing people, are going to resort not to forgiveness but vengeance.
We cannot allow that to happen, and the only solution is exposure, journalism, sunlight, as the best disinfectant.
When the leadership in our government is not forthcoming and transparent about matters they should be, you will see men on the front lines,
men on the inside like this Glenn Prager guy who are familiar with the files, familiar with Epstein, familiar with who's on the airplanes.
Indeed, he's the guy who actually interviewed all the victims in Palm Beach.
Well, you'll see people like this be forthcoming and honest when their leadership isn't.
I recognize Prager's life has now changed forever.
You might be tempted to focus on that and focus on him personally.
We have no doubt that no matter how much proof is provided by me, the powers that be will deny, deflect, personalize, and cover all of this up.
You may wonder how it is these guys in our government so brazenly open up to total strangers in airports about national security secrets.
Please note, this isn't about him or Glenn Prager.
It's about opening the floodgates of honesty from other men who are just like Glenn Prager, but who never wanted to be involved.
We're just following orders.
He lived with these secrets and the horror of what he knows lives on his conscience, the weight on his shoulders.
He lives with a guilt for knowing the truth.
That is why he was so forthcoming in public in the airport.
That is why others with national security secrets will continue to be so forthcoming to our army of citizen exposers.
And there are many more out there like Glenn Prager.
And now, right now, you who are watching must come forward and tell the truth and be transparent.
Be a hero and do the right thing.
In the last few weeks, I've reached out to top officials of the Department of Justice repeatedly ahead of these reports.
Our attorneys even sent a letter to the FBI Director Kash Patel.
There seems to be more of an interest, generally speaking, in covering their ass instead of telling the truth.
While we expect that of the previous administrations, we expect better of the Trump administration and those who campaigned on the promise of transparency.
Now, I was advised that reaching out far ahead of time would lead to this story being suppressed,
something that my team, and I dare say all of the people who actually voted for this administration, can't comprehend.
But these reports are going to continue coming out, and they will not be partisan or political.
They're going to cut across the political divide, because this is not a political mission and I am not a political person.
It is my mission to clean up society through transparency, accountability, and the truth.
I wrote last week the legacy of Charlie Kirk is to do the right thing for the right reasons.
And reflecting on his legacy, I saw a remarkable change within him in the last couple years,
but especially the last couple months of observing him from afar and also knowing him personally.
I reached out to Charlie to solicit his advice ahead of this story.
I was expecting Charlie Kirk to express the same reluctance as the top DOJ officials relayed to me,
the same officials that Charlie no doubt in some part or in some way, matter, shape, or form helped to get their jobs in the first place.
I told Charlie I was conflicted about what to do, and Charlie Kirk's last words to me were,
"James, you should be a journalist first."
[no audio]
This kind of journalism is dangerous, legally taxing, and certainly not profitable.
If we are to continue to uncover these dark truths, we need your help now.
Please donate to our 501(c)(3) nonprofit Citizen Journalism Foundation to continue funding these types of investigative reports.
The nonprofit again is called Citizen Journalism Foundation.
The donations are fully tax deductible, and information can be found at o'keefmediagroup.com/donate.
[no audio]
[no audio]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[no audio]
[no audio]
[no audio]
[no audio]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
[music]
Hello everyone, welcome back to The Price Is My Life.
We're going to be having a show on the heels of our big Glenn Prager bombshell inside the Department of Justice.
We have all the reactions, all the statements, and some new information.
We do a show each and every week here in Florida, live with a special guest.
But today's show we're going to be talking about the reaction from the Department of Justice.
We've had a number of reactions.
We're going to have guests calling in, Laura Logan, Jack Vesobic, possibly Alex Jones, and others.
We're going to have your tips, investigative journalists out there, you citizens with information.
We're going to be coaching you on the stories that you're working on.
And we're going to have subscriber Q&A portion where subscribers to O'Keefe Media Group are able to call and ask questions.
But first, let's go to the story from yesterday.
This is the investigator inside the DOJ has taken down his LinkedIn, I hope you can see this, Glenn Prager, before and after.
This is remarkable, nuked it. Nuked his LinkedIn.
And Glenn Prager, not to be confused with Dennis Prager,
the Office of Inspector General, investigator inside the Department of Justice, worked for LexisNexis, worked for Health and Human Services. We're going to go through those reactions.
And let's see the backpack with the DOJ patch on it in the airport where we struck up the conversation with this Department of Justice official.
You see on the backpack, it says Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation there at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.
You saw the video. It's got eight million views.
We're going to just take you through a few sections of this video.
First, this bit where he talks about paying off witnesses. Let's play that clip.
So, you know, it's interesting about this is that they're trying to say, you'll see in a minute, that, well, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
He was exaggerating. He was embellishing. But in fact, Prager did interview Epstein victims and talks about it there.
And we have the information now from Glenn Prager that Epstein was a, quote, "CIA informant." That's at two minutes and 47 seconds. Let's play that clip.
You know, it's all talked about yet, but it soon came out that he was a CIA informant. He was a CIA informant.
Although many have been confirming there that Epstein was a CIA informant.
And then this section about Trump never being present during the sexual abuse on the airplanes, this seemingly exonerates Trump. It's not a bad thing for the White House.
Over her.
OK. And then this last part of the video, I reveal one of Charlie Kirk's last things he said to me. And we actually isolated this and put this up online today because a lot of you felt that it was the most powerful part of the video.
People tend to look at things through a highly political lens, but this is not a political story and we don't have a political mission.
So let's play 12 minutes, 18 seconds to 13 minutes of the video.
And then this last part of the video, I reveal one of the most powerful things about the video. And then this last part of the video, I reveal one of the most powerful things about the video.
And then this last part of the video, I reveal one of the most powerful things about the video.
And then this last part of the video, I reveal one of the most powerful things about the video.
And then this last part of the video, I reveal one of the most powerful things about the video.
And then this last part of the video, I reveal one of the most powerful things about the video.
And Charlie Kirk's last words to me were, "James, you should be a journalist first."
So, yeah, I mean, that's something that he shared with me as I sought his advice and feedback regarding doing this, regarding doing this story and stories like it.
And we'll talk more about that here in a minute.
Let's go to the call that we had with Glenn Prager.
We actually called him three times in a row yesterday.
And here are some bumbling and fumbling responses from this guy.
And then we'll go to his text message to me yesterday afternoon.
Yes.
Hey there, is this Glenn?
Yes.
You work for the Department of Justice, correct?
No.
You don't work for the Department of Justice.
You had a patch on your backpack that said, "FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation" in the airport?
Yeah.
And you talked about how you interviewed the Epstein people, all the Epstein victims.
Do you recall that conversation?
No. How can I help you?
I wanted to confirm that you, in fact, did work for the Department.
Hang on to the phone.
Let's try calling him again.
Glenn?
I'm not talking to you.
I don't know who you are. I'm not talking to you.
You already did speak to my--
Pause, pause, pause.
They always say, "I'm not talking to you," after they just talked extensively to Orlando.
It's very strange behavior, but it's human behavior. It's natural behavior. Keep going.
Right.
Now stop talking. I don't know who you are.
I'm a journalist. I need your help, sir.
I'm not talking to you or any journalist about anything.
Did you interview the Epstein victims?
I'm not. I can't talk to you.
Okay. There it is. "I can't talk to you."
"I can't talk to you," says Glenn Prager.
If you're just tuning in, we are talking about the reactions to this bombshell story by acclamation of anybody that I really respect.
They think this is obviously the most interesting piece of information I've ever reported in my life.
By the way, there's a difference between something being the most important information and being covered everywhere.
Huge difference. They might be inversely proportional.
Let's go to -- this is Prager's text message to me. If you want to throw that on screen.
I'm going to read this text message to you.
This reads like a North Korea-style, you know, gun to the head sort of thing.
Quote, "I was approached --" and I'm going to read it in the way that I think he's saying it.
"I was approached in what I believed was a casual, nonprofessional context, and I later learned the individual was misrepresenting themselves, thinking it was simply personal banter.
I responded in a kind --" clearly Glenn Prager has been coached in how to write this, perhaps even coached by the powers that be.
Quote, "Any remarks from that exchange should not be interpreted as accurate statements or reflective of my actual work conduct or opinion."
It's so funny to contrast this statement with how he behaved on the phone with me.
Quote, "I want to ensure there is no confusion caused by that misleading interaction.
Please stop calling and texting. It's approaching harassment. Printing any story related to my opinion is misleading and/or completely inaccurate.
To make it perfectly clear, I was not involved in any way and any opinions are based on public information."
Okay, well, this is the first time we've seen a Department of Justice official say these things, say these things officially.
So, we get this text message from Glenn Prager to my phone personally, and then we get a statement from the Department of Justice.
Let's look at the statement, please. Let's first go to this official statement.
I'm in the business of exposing unofficial statements, by the way.
Let's take a look at the official statement, guys. It reads this individual, okay.
"This individual worked at the Department of Justice as a program analyst over 15 years ago.
He has no understanding or access to the underlying facts of this investigation. His statement should not be considered accurate.
It's disgusting that someone would further exploit victims of sexual abuse by fabricating stories for their personal benefit."
Now, what's interesting about this statement is it seems like the DOJ's reaction is super revealing here because it actually almost validates his claims,
particularly when they say fabricating stories for their benefit, personal benefit? How does Prager stand to benefit?
It's like the Pfizer guy who said, "I'm just trying to impress my gay date by lying about mutating vaccines
because nothing makes a guy hornier than hearing about people talking about fabricating stories about children on Palm Beach Island and mutating vaccines to make money about COVID."
How does Glenn Prager stand to benefit? What is the basis of the statement? So, why was it said?
"Some believe they slipped up and committed the common gaslighting tactic of projection,
that there are those benefiting from perpetuating the cover-up, which effectively reinforces what Prager is saying."
Now, this bit about 15 years ago, well, yeah, that's when the things actually occurred.
It makes him more credible that he did this stuff 15 years ago or 2007, 2009.
We've come to learn that this man actually was a W-2 employee or officially employed by the Department of Justice in 2007, 2009, and has been a contractor.
That's how they cover tracks when they have someone behave as a contractor.
Now, we've got a lot to get through here today. And thank you all for tuning in and supporting us.
For those of you tuning in, we are live from West Palm Beach, Florida.
We are going next to the statement from the DOJ spokesperson via X. It's going to get stranger and stranger, everybody.
This is from DOJ spokes 47. I didn't know what this was. I thought it was a SOC account, a spam account.
Quote, "Regarding the latest James O'Keefe bombshell," they put bombshell in quotes,
"As the Department of Justice has made clear, this individual left government service more than 15 years ago in a brief junior role.
He has no knowledge or access to this investigation as the searches are baseless.
Exploiting survivors of sexual abuse by fabricating stories of personal benefit is reprehensible. Enough with the clickbait."
Again, if he was doing this stuff 15 years ago or this is 2009, so it would be 15 years ago, that's when the stuff actually occurred.
Now, if we go to his LinkedIn bio, can we do that for a minute, guys?
This has all been taken down. This has all been scrubbed from the Internet, by the way.
This is the about section. Quote, do we have the about section? Can we throw that on the screen?
Quote, "During his tenure at DOJ, Mr. Prager served as an inspector overseeing sensitive investigations involving major DOJ components,
including the FBI, DEA, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, ATF, and the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Special sensitive investigations involving major DOJ components."
And you see there on his LinkedIn, "Office of the Inspector General, Investigator within the U.S. Department of Justice."
Let's go back to those tweets. This is the DOJ spokesperson tweets directed at me.
And then this is me saying, "During his tenure at DOJ, Prager served as what I just said.
The DOJ has not denied that he interviewed victims or that his claims were false."
And then DOJ spokesperson, "Out of an abundance of caution," and so the record is clear,
"As we stated in our statement, he was not an investigator. He was a program analyst.
He did not interview any of Epstein's victims. His statements are false."
But we're not done. The Department of Justice has responded multiple times and has come out swinging.
And I want to read a passage from a book which I love called "Manufacturing Consent."
It's written by Noam Chomsky.
You see, the powers that be can't actually tell you the truth.
And Noam Chomsky writes about this in "Manufacturing Consent,"
that the mass media isn't covering a story like this because they cannot.
The mass media can only report on the statements that are attributable to a government spokesperson.
They have to believe the government. They can't question government.
I've had press reach out to me saying, "Well, what about what the Department of Justice said?"
I said, "What about what the guy inside the Department of Justice said?"
And Chomsky writes in "Manufacturing Consent," page 18,
"The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information
by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest.
The media need a steady, reliable flow of the raw material of news.
They have daily news demands and imperative news schedules that they must meet."
Chomsky goes on to write about government and corporate sources.
"Also have the great merit of being recognizable and credible by their status and prestige.
News workers are predisposed to treat bureaucratic accounts as factual
because news personnel participate in upholding a normative order of authorized knowers in the society.
Reporters operate with the attitude that officials ought to know what it is their job to know.
In particular, a news worker will recognize an official's claim to knowledge not merely as a claim,
but as a credible, competent piece of knowledge."
So when the Department of Justice puts out a statement,
the journalists -- I put the journalist with a little "TM" trademark after the word --
they have to believe this.
It's part of the paragon of news to believe this versus what the guy said in the airport.
"This amounts to a moral division of labor.
Officials have and give the facts. Reporters merely get them."
But that is not how we roll at a Keefe Media Group.
That is not how we operate. We give you the unsanctioned information.
People say, "Where's the media?" We are the media. You are the media.
One more thing before we go to a quick break.
This guy, Glenn Prager, got the position of vice president of big corporations acting as a consultant to the Department of Justice
because of his time as a DOJ investigator, which they also list in his bio, on LinkedIn.
But he was never a DOD investigator.
So these corporations hired a vice president without any confirmation of his qualifications and background.
That's bullshit.
We'll go to a quick break, and then we'll come in to hear from a few different people, some callers, some responses.
Breaking news inside the Department of Justice.
This is James O'Keefe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the powerful accountable.
But today, I want to talk to you about protecting your own freedom, starting with your finances.
Right now, the warning signs are everywhere. The Fed continues to print money.
Interest rates and inflation remain high.
And everywhere you look, your hard-earned money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
That's not your imagination. It's not your imagination.
It's today's reality.
If central banks are loading up on gold, why not you?
That's why I've now partnered with American Independence Gold.
They're veteran-owned, and proceeds from every sale go to tunnels to towers, supporting our first responders and heroes.
And listen, right now, the first 50 customers get a $1,000 credit towards their account.
That's right, $1,000 to help you get started protecting your wealth with real, physical gold.
Don't wait for the next crisis. Go to okeefemediagold.com.
That's O-K-E-E-F-E-mediagold.com or 833-324-GOLD.
Again, that's okeefemediagold.com or 833-324-GOLD.
Take action, get the facts, and protect your future, because freedom isn't given, it's secured.
This is James O'Keefe. Don't just watch history, own a piece of it.
We're standing up to the powers that tried to discredit us, silence us, smear us, raid us, and throw us in jail.
They've awakened a sleeping giant.
We're building a movement of transparency and accountability in both the public and private sectors,
because we run from nothing, we hide from nothing.
And when you join and get your full access pass, you fuel a movement for truth.
You, we, are the media now.
[Music]
Hello everyone, welcome back to Price is My Life.
We are live from West Palm Beach, Florida, reacting to these Department of Justice statements.
Glenn Prager revealing all inside of an airport.
And I did give you all my thoughts and statements in the video release,
but we are coming back live to take a look at some reactions from some of the people on the internet.
Tim Poole, Kenoka the Great, let's throw some of those reactions up on the screen so everyone can see them.
Tim Poole writing, "Holy shit."
That's on the X account. Let's take a look at some of the reactions.
Schellenberger's article, Michael Schellenberger.
These comments are made to the public before the release of an interview with the former Justice Department investigator who claimed,
working with O'Keefe, that former President Bill Clinton was on Epstein's plane when girls were being raped,
and that Epstein worked for both the CIA and the Israeli government.
In response to a query from public, that's Michael Schellenberger's website, White House spokesman Abigail Jackson said,
"Democrats and the media knew about Epstein and his victims for years and did nothing to help them,"
while President Trump was calling for transparency.
And is now delivering on it with thousands of pages of documents as part of the ongoing oversight investigation.
And I believe we have some people possibly to call in. Do we have the call-in guests yet?
Let's take a look at some other reactions to the story from the people all over the internet yesterday.
The video, this is Kanoa the Great, "Did Glenn Prager investigate the Jeffrey Epstein's case for the Department of Justice?
Was it recently or many years ago?"
And I think the response there is that all this stuff wasn't recent.
This was 15 years ago, or whatever the case may be.
A couple other reactions that people have responded, this is zero hedge,
"Rather than make statements that further erode the public's trust in the DOJ, publish documents or other evidence that prove what you say."
This is colloquially known as receipts.
We have provided a receipt, which is this guy on video in the airport talking about what he saw.
They're just making statements.
And this is zero hedge rights, "We no longer live in a society in which the public default to trusting institutions of alleged authority."
And that's kind of what Chomsky writes about in this book, "Manufacturing Consent,"
that the media tends to lean on the authorized knowers of society.
Another reason for the heavyweight given to official sources is that the mass media claim to be objective dispensers of the news,
partly to maintain the image of objectivity, but also to protect themselves from criticisms and libel suits.
They need material that can be portrayed as presumptively accurate.
This is the challenge in a story like this, everyone, that people are going to be like, "Well, but O'Keefe, what about what the DOJ is saying?"
I say, "What about what the guy's saying in the airport?"
So they lean upon things, of course, that are presumptively accurate.
And it's also partly a matter of cost, taking information from sources that may be presumed credible reduces investigative expense and risk,
whereas material from sources that are not prima facie credible or that will elicit criticism and threats requires doing that investigative journalism thingy.
It takes time.
So we have this reaction. What are some other reactions? Guys, you have anything else?
The quartering. I think I've been on this guy's show, "The Quartering."
Do we have a video or is this just text? Let's play the video.
Ooh, wee. Well, I don't know which channel I'm going to upload this to.
You see the Jeremy Hambly channel, which is my second channel, where it's a little more uncensored, a little more spicy.
If you're seeing this video while watching on "The Quartering," please do subscribe to my Jeremy Hambly channel.
If you're watching it on Jeremy Hambly channel, well, then you could also subscribe here, too.
This is a very, very big piece of investigative reporting from James O'Keefe, and he just DMed me.
I wish I could share our DMs. It would be... It is pretty hilarious.
Maybe you'll see me tweet it out later. It's wild.
Can I share this short exchange? It's very funny. If he texts back, I'll show you while we're live.
Well, that was... It's not live, but... That was him asking to put a shoe on my head, which we did.
What other reactions we've got, guys?
And we're waiting on, I think it's Laura Logan for her response. Any callers yet?
So we have Laura Logan calling in for a minute, but if you haven't picked up this book by Noam Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent,"
it's something I've thought about for many years of my life, and this idea of taking information from sources that are presumed credible.
Some other reactions on X. This is Matt responding to the story.
Glenn Prager didn't say he interviewed the victims yesterday, so the 15 years ago argument jives with his confession.
Thanks for confirming he actually was a DOJ investigator. This is the DOJ's confirmation.
Also, how did you guys, the DOJ, confirm in a matter of minutes that Glenn Prager had nothing to do with this investigation?
How does that work? How does the Department of Justice confirm within a matter of minutes?
And then Drew Hernandez responds to the story. Clickbait? Who wrote this? You people think we're stupid, don't you?
Did the Attorney General write this? I cannot hear the cringe attempt to sound assertive in this post.
We've also learned that the Department of Justice had a very long day yesterday, and we took their time.
Why are you taking -- this is something I've learned from sources who've reached out to me -- that why are you taking our time, James O'Keefe?
You're making life difficult for us. What are you talking about? I mean, this is my job.
I'm not a political person. I'm not a political operative. I'm not a partisan person. I'm trying to ascertain the truth.
So there was definite pushback on me personally, this organization. Attempts were made to get me to back off and back down.
Don't hurt our team. I don't know what that means.
I said to Alex Jones today that I support the president. I believe in the president. The president supports me.
But this is not even really about that. This is about something more specific happening.
Fifteen years ago, who was on airplanes? This man claims that Bill Clinton was in fact on the airplane when the rapes occurred.
This is what he says. He says this is the very reason, according to the transcript of this video, this is the very reason why there's a cover-up.
Can we play that part of the tape again? Let's go to the tape and just play that one more time.
This is the part about the airplane and Bill Clinton on the airplane. And then we'll go to Laura Logan.
He alleges that the reason...
Okay. That can't be said for Clinton. I believe we have Laura Logan on the line. Can we bring in Laura Logan, my friend?
Hi, Laura. I used your line about accountability in my remarks about Charlie Kirk's passing, and I used it again.
I don't know if you had a chance to watch my stand-up and my comments about this recent development yesterday inside the Department of Justice.
I'd love your thoughts on all of it.
Well, James, this is obviously still a big story, right? Anything related to Epstein. And this seems to answer some questions that a lot of people have.
So once again, you're doing real journalistic work here that other people are not doing.
And I always like it when it's based on a first-hand source and not just based on somebody talking about somebody else.
And I looked at the credentials of this guy. He certainly has all the credentials.
I mean, I do. I'm constantly amazed that you have these people with knowledge of things that are extremely significant that will just fill their guts.
I mean, that's just something I don't really understand.
But I do think accountability does matter. But I'm always conscious of what we don't know.
That's always the thing that bothers me about this, is what else do we not know?
Because I don't believe that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino suddenly became bad people and no longer mean what they say and they just break their word and whatever.
I don't think that narrative that's out there makes a lot of sense to me.
I know both of them pretty well and they're consistent. I mean, I know Dan better than I know Cash. And I don't know Pam Bondi and I know she gets hammered.
But when I look at it strategically in terms of information warfare, I see that where there is a high concentration of effort on a particular individual or target,
I try to assess what are the obvious reasons for that and then what are the reasons beyond that.
So I do find it very interesting that this guy seems to be well-placed in terms of first-hand knowledge and information and that gives him a lot of credibility.
I find it odd that he would just spill his guts to somebody he doesn't even know and then continue to do so.
But if you look back even in the Bible, a honeypot is real. What was the serpent in the Garden of Eden was really a honeypot in a sense.
I'm getting Eve to do something that she could then deceive. That was a honeypot operation.
And so these things have been around from the beginning of time and maybe men just get around.
Sometimes they get around someone or you've interviewed a lot of gay people that have fallen for someone who seems to be gay.
And they will say things that they wouldn't otherwise say. That may be the explanation.
But regardless, what did we really learn here? We learned a little bit more, quite a lot more actually about the whole Epstein thing and what may be blocking the release.
But I'm always conscious of the fact that Epstein is in my investigation a mid-level, mid- to low-level player because it's really the intelligence agencies that are running these operations.
He's not running it. And the one that was the linchpin in his operations was Ghislaine Maxwell.
She's really the key. And why are they still holding her and what have we learned from her and why have we not seen any real prosecutions coming out of Ghislaine Maxwell?
Those are still unanswered questions that I'm hopeful we'll hear more about.
What did you make of the DOJ? Did you see the DOJ reactions? They responded like a number of times. It's actually quite extraordinary.
They are saying that this guy, I'm going to quote them, left government more than 15 years ago in a brief role.
And I find that kind of a strange reaction because the whole point is what he witnessed in his role during that time.
The Epstein interviews didn't happen yesterday. They happened years ago.
And the DOJ accused, it wasn't clear whether they were accusing me or him, the guy in the video, of, quote, "exploiting survivors of sexual abuse by fabricating stories."
They sent another tweet out saying, "This guy is, you know, his statements are false."
And they put out an official statement, the official statement we put up earlier, and they also, the guy sent me a long text message.
This is the guy in the video. And it just seemed like a North Korea-style written. I mean, it just seems fishy.
And I just wanted your reaction to these responses.
Okay. So the first reaction of minimizing his role, that's a standard tactic when you can't actually properly discredit someone. You can't say they didn't serve in the job they were in.
You can't say they weren't involved in the investigation. You can't do anything like that.
So the first thing you do is minimize their role so that you can minimize the credibility of what they're saying.
And we saw that with the attorney that was charged in the Russia collusion investigations where he was actually the one who altered the documents, went to the FISA court,
said to the court that Carter Page, an American citizen and patriot, was a Russian spy, knew that he was working for the CIA, removed that information.
I mean, he did massive things in that conspiracy. And they immediately responded by minimizing his role.
Oh, he was just a low-level attorney. He wasn't involved in much. None of that was true.
So, you know, I always see that as a classic hallmark of an information warfare tactic.
That's when you respond to something like this that you don't want out there.
You immediately minimize their role to minimize the significance, to undermine their credibility.
That's number one. Number two, you always look at time, effort, resources that you allocate to countering what is out there.
So if you're putting out multiple tweets, multiple messages, multiple responses, you've got the guy himself,
probably somebody called him up and said, what the hell are you doing? This is what we want you to do.
And, you know, your future credibility and ability to function in whatever capacity he may or may not be in at this point, you know,
is going to be in whole or in part determined by whether you help us now or not, right?
And so now that I can't tell you that that definitely happened, but that's consistent with the kind of tactics that people use when they have information
that is out and they don't want it out, but they still have links and connections to the person responsible.
Like this guy is going to know a lot of people, right, in law enforcement, in DOJ, in FBI.
He's going to have people that say to him, hey, dude, you know, what are you doing? Right?
Well, I mean, let me just…
And then they're going to try to see if he will cooperate in walking it back.
Well, that was pretty quick. I mean, he sent me this text message pretty quickly and he was clearly coached or something
because he said on the phone, I can't talk to you, James. And then he sent me this very Kim Jong-il like statement.
But you said something earlier, like you don't know. This was not a honey pot, by the way.
This was actually a guy in an airport. I suppose it was a female that walked up to him, but it wasn't a date.
It wasn't something that we planned or gone and bumbled. Yeah, I don't mean a date.
I mean, he just might have been enamored by this person.
Could be, but the gay Pfizer guy saying we mutate viruses, I'm the vice president of a pharmaceutical company.
I mean, it's kind of like, I spoke to someone at the… it was Julia Brown at the Miami Herald,
and she said, just the fact that these guys are saying these things and their positions of power,
even if, which I don't think is happening, but even if they're trying to impress somebody,
it just stands to reason that it's not impressive to talk about all the people in Palm Beach Island
you interviewed, these young girls who apparently the Department of Justice had to, or Epstein rather,
had to bribe ahead of trial. I mean, that's a very weird thing to brag about.
But I think Laura…
Well, James, that makes me want to pick up on the third pillar.
Go ahead.
As you were reading, going through the response, there were three things,
and the final one is that they're trying to shame you. How could you do this to the victims?
That's the guilt thing, right? That's we're playing the moral card here.
We're going to try and guilt you and shame you into this, and that's pretty odd,
because that's the actual card that gets played against them, where they're most vulnerable,
because they're the ones that are accused of betraying or letting down the victims
by not actually doing anything about what all those people that Jeffrey, Epstein,
and Giselle, and Maxwell have affected. So they know they're vulnerable there.
They hit you on that one, right? And it's completely hypocritical.
But the only thing I would say to sort of balance this out,
if you're trying to make an assessment of the whole truth, is just that I don't believe
that Donald Trump doesn't care about the victims of child trafficking or Jeffrey Epstein.
And I absolutely know that he was not involved in that, and this guy confirms that.
But what else is happening here that we are not aware of in the bigger picture
that has caused these people to take actions that a lot of their supporters feel are a betrayal?
There's definitely a vulnerability there, because people want the truth on Epstein,
and they want justice, and rightly so, and they should have.
So if you think about it strategically, what is the bigger picture here?
Because these operations, these Epstein-style operations, they haven't stopped.
It's not like it ended with the arrest and the death of Epstein and Maxwell.
This is ongoing, and our own intelligence agencies are still running similar operations.
P. Diddy has all the hallmarks of another operation.
And so the question that really here is, look at the – you said this guy responded very quickly.
Well, because they got to him very quickly, which tells you that they're concerned.
You mean the DOJ got to this Glenn Prager guy pretty quickly?
Yeah, or the FBI, somebody, somebody in the administration, somebody got to him.
I mean, that makes it obvious.
But why is there – there's an incongruence between the leadership of the organizations.
I don't want to single out Cash or Pam or whoever the case may be,
but the rank and file are talking out of turn.
This is the second time we've seen a story like this.
The last guy was a DOJ prisons guy. This is a DOJ investigator, Inspector General guy.
And I mean, I agree with you.
I don't think this piece is bad for Trump.
I mean, it actually exonerates him from any sexual wrongdoing, which I assume was the case.
But who's being protected?
Like, what do you think is actually happening, Logan?
So, James, if you look at this strategically, this is – the Epstein thing is huge
because it relates to children and the exploitation of children,
which as a society, as decent human beings, anyone with a conscience,
this has to be at the core of where you say we're not okay with this.
So I don't want to minimize this in any way whatsoever.
But if you're the president of this country and you have –
you're looking at a strategic plan with multiple lines of operation.
One of those lines right now is the fact that you have Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab magazine
putting out information that's been reported that they're saying churches and schools should be attacked.
At the same time, you have Iranian Revolutionary Guards who have plans that intelligence –
many intelligence-related groups are looking at right now,
where they've got plans to go after first responders and hospitals and other soft targets.
You know, at the same time, you've got Antifa riots in the street.
So what you're looking at is a blue-green-red alliance.
So the blue is the globalists and the technocrats in the deep state.
The red is the Marxists and the left, right?
And the green is the – of both Shiites and Sunni Al-Qaeda, Persians, Iran, IRGC.
So if you imagine, we have a very serious high-level threat right now
that they are going to do something – you know, what's possible, right?
What intelligence agencies have gamed out is you have an attack on multiple schools and hospitals.
And as you dial 911, you know, you have the streets blocked by protesters and whatever.
And then the people that come in dressed as first responders,
law enforcement or emergency responders, are not real.
They are Iranian Revolutionary Guard kill teams that have been in this country that were led under Joe Biden.
Plus, you have 300,000 uniformed members of the Chinese People's Liberation Army
with special operations units from China, with hacking teams, with, you know,
clandestine covert spy units and so on.
So we have a massive national security issue that is coming to the fore
when you see Trump designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and Antifa as domestic terrorists.
These are signs that the administration is aware of these threats and they're closing in on these people.
And what it also means is they're closing in on the money
because the theft of our elections has been financed by millions and billions of dollars from abroad.
And how does this money move?
A lot of it moves through these terrorist networks and through the networks of coercion,
extortion and corruption around Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, right?
Where you're trading in children, exploiting young boys and girls,
corrupting politicians and bringing people into these networks.
I mean, the IRGC, which actually runs Iran, not the Ayatollah Khomeini who works for them,
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is one of the most powerful criminal organizations on earth.
They're trafficking in children. They're connected to these Epstein networks.
The same goes to the Saudis. I mean, the same goes for every nation on earth.
So when you say why, you know, why, if you look at this in isolation, it looks one way.
If you put this into just that's just on the that's just on one aspect of what this administration is dealing with, right?
One aspect of it. The other aspect of it is, of course, in the immigration sense and the crime sense.
Yes, they're cleaning up these cities. Yes, they're deporting people. Why?
Because these people, these foreign paramilitary terrorist organizations like Tren de Aragua,
like Cartel del Sol, those are both out of Venezuela, like Sinaloa out of Mexico.
They are the army of the deep state. So when you have this nightmare attack scenario carried out,
what happens if you then have other shootings at the same time?
You have other criminal activity from these foreign terrorist organizations.
This is what you're looking at. This is the whole picture that they're dealing with, never mind on the economic front,
dismantling the Federal Reserve, you know, dealing with the Fed chair, that whole thing that's that's crumbling before our very eyes.
And then like what happened when Charlie Kirk was assassinated at the very same moment you had a school shooting
and nobody even paid attention to that because everyone was focused on Charlie.
Laura, we've got we only got a minute left. Sorry to cut you off, but we've only got a minute.
We have the next caller in. But we did see that the CIA, he did confirm that Epstein was CIA.
And thank you. Thank you for your thoughts and thank you for your feedback.
And I loved your message. These are all intelligence operations, James.
Well, and maybe that's why the leadership can't be transparent then, right?
That's what I take from what you're saying. The leadership can't tell us the truth because they can't reveal their sources and methods.
They can't reveal intelligence methods. So thank you, Laura.
But it doesn't mean they won't. Timing is everything, you know?
Well, the rank and file are the leadership are not. So the rank as long as there are O'Keeffe citizen exposers.
But thank you, Laura, for your time. We're going to go to the next caller. I appreciate it very much.
I think I think you're amazing, James. Don't stop. Keep doing it. You love you. Love you, too.
Who do we have on deck, team? All right. All right. We have Jack.
Jack Vesobic on the air.
Moments away, we have Jack Vesobic, who I think will be dialing in in a second.
Hey, Jackie, you there? James, do you have me there? Yes, I got you. Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Yeah. Great job. Great job, Jack.
I'm here with the speech in Arizona. I saw you on the on the main stage with the rosary standing right in front of you.
That must have been incredible. I mean, actually, take a moment to tell my audience.
I mean, everyone saw what you said and around the world.
But I just I guess on a human level, what was it like for you standing up in front of seventy four thousand people in that very spiritual moment?
And thank you, by the way, for saying that and also for being there on on that day.
You know, people keep asking me about it. They say, you know, it's your biggest speech, biggest audience, you know, 74,000, I guess, in the room.
And then we have the arena next door. I think it was two hundred thousand total.
I can't count the amount of people who came out, plus however many around the networks and I've seen the ratings and numbers.
But, you know, honestly, I wish I could say that I enjoyed a second of it, but I didn't.
I didn't want to be there. I didn't want to be having to give a speech like that or a memorial like that or participating in that.
Because it doesn't mean anything to me if Charlie's not there. And the fact that they took Charlie from us, I understand he's there in spirit and I believe that.
But the fact that they took Charlie from us and that generated all of this.
That's not something I'm going to move on from. And that's just how it felt.
You know, it shouldn't have happened. It shouldn't have been done that way.
And sure, I'd love to give big speeches, but not like that. Not that way, you know?
And it feels ill gotten in that sense. And so, look, I just tried to be there for Erica, for the family, for the broader Turning Point family as much as I can.
I've been here in Phoenix since it happened. Basically haven't even gone home to my family.
And my wife Tanya has been very, very supportive. She brought them out to the memorial. I think she saw them actually.
And yeah, I wish I could say I enjoyed a single second of it, but I really didn't.
Jack, one more question before I ask you about this latest tape in the Department of Justice.
I want to get your reaction to the tape and the DOJ's reaction to the tape, which I know you saw.
I saw, I think you posted, or was it Benny or Mike McCoy? But it was a video of Charlie privately, like maybe right before the election.
Some backstage. Did you post? I think you did post this. And Charlie said, "Why doesn't the right go on offense?"
Why doesn't the right go on offense? And Charlie says, "Because," and he lists Bannon, Trump, and myself.
Like he lists all the things that happen to people who do go on offense. Do you know the clip I'm talking about?
Yeah, yeah. I think Mikey, a bunch of us posted it.
Yeah, yeah. And I thought that was very interesting. I wanted to get your thoughts on what he was saying there.
Is the reason why people don't go on the front lines because they're deterred from doing so, because they watch Bannon go to jail, Trump get indicted?
Charlie mentioned myself with the FBI and getting removed from my company.
And I just wanted your thoughts on Charlie's private words that were published.
Well, I think it's correct. And I'm glad, by the way, that he put that out. And I'm glad that I was glad to share it, because I do think that there's an effect of that going on, where there are many --
it's not just Republicans, but Republicans and Democrats who are involved in what they say, "Oh, we're fighting back. We're going to fight the left. We're going to do all this."
But then when it comes to actual actions to be taken, whether in the name of transparency or in the name of arrests or actually doing something to the domestic terror networks that are operating on our soil,
the actions don't follow through with the words and the strongly worded letters and tweets.
And Charlie's right, because he's gone to D.C. and he's met with them and he's realized that there is a sense of fear.
There's a palpable sense of fear that it's very easy to be there and have your wonderful office and go up on Capitol Hill and then go out to your district and collect money or go all around the world on these congressional delegations.
But at the end of the day, if you have to come up and actually face danger, like a James O'Keefe or a Steve Bannon or a Charlie Kirk or a Donald Trump, many of them cower, many of them back down and they say,
"I'm not willing to actually walk towards the fire because it's too hot." And unfortunately, there are far too many of these individuals in D.C.
And then deep down, this is what Charlie was saying, he's really getting at, deep down, they're terrified.
Deep down. They're not willing to admit it.
Did Charlie have -- this is my opinion, my perspective, and you knew him even -- you were very close to him.
I was somewhat close to him, particularly after the Veritas thing blew up.
He really helped me and you and I and him hung out a few times.
Did he have a little bit of a change of heart towards the end of his career? Because I've seen people say that he really kind of even got -- I think Andrew Culver said he got a little disillusioned.
What did he say about politics and just had a little bit of a change of pace or a change of heart?
Is there anything about that that you can speak to in your knowing him and observing him the last few months of his life?
Yeah, I guess I would -- so Charlie was -- ever since Trump got reelected --
you know, I live in the D.C. area, you see it right now, but I live in the D.C. area.
So Charlie would come to D.C. to -- you know, more frequently.
So he hadn't really been in D.C. for all the years that Biden was in office.
But then he would start coming back after the inauguration and then with the Trump White House, he would come and make visits.
And some of those visits haven't even been made public.
You know, but he would see me or he'd be chatting when he came to town and he would tell me, "Jack, I can't understand how you can live here.
I just can't understand it." He goes, "It's so imperial and it's bold and it's stark and just dehumanizing to be here.
And I don't like being in D.C. I want to be out with the people out in real America."
And he just kept saying over and over about how the sense of people in Washington, D.C. is so fake.
And so that disillusionment you're talking about, that's absolutely something that I noticed with Charlie.
He's been making these trips back to D.C.
Not by the way, not talking about people inside the Trump administration,
but sort of other people that he might see or other things that he would hear about when he was coming to town.
And he really, you know, you go back and I'm sitting in the Turning Point office right now,
and you go back to the origins of Turning Point and there used to be this idea that,
"Well, if we just get the right people in office in all of these states, everything will be okay and everything will be fine."
And I think he's starting to realize that it takes way more than that.
And for Charlie, you could also see as he was turning down the political, what was he moving towards?
He was moving more towards the spiritual, and he was moving more towards the Gospels,
more towards Christ, towards God.
And I think that also comes through the life events that he had gone through in just the last couple of years,
marrying Erica, becoming a father, having a second child.
All of those things tend to have that effect on anyone who goes through them.
And so I think you really saw him leaning into that more.
Well, I think it's different when you're governing or you're in power, so to speak, versus up against it.
Speaking of people who are in power, I showed you the story, the DOJ is kind of pushing back pretty hard against me.
And the guy is an investigator and he interviewed the victims in 2007, 2008, 2009.
They say, "Well, this was 15 years ago. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the video and the reaction to the video
and anything you want to say about what you witnessed because you're kind of in it
and you're close to the ground on this Epstein stuff."
Yeah, no, I have been in terms of the first investigation and then sort of the cavalcade of the Epstein situation
as it's filled out over the last couple of months here, the last six, seven months.
And, you know, look, let's take it back this way. It's a fantastic video that you found.
But let's talk about CIA operations and clandestine operations, source operations, human source operations.
How do they work? You know, when you say someone, and this comes up all the time,
you saw this with January 6th and those investigations as well, where they would say,
"Well, we didn't have any agents in the crowd. There was no agent in the crowd."
Well, that's not how an investigation would work.
And speaking of the guy who is a prior intelligence officer, the way that you run sources, if you're the, in my case, military officer overseas,
but if you were a, you know, if you were federal law enforcement in the U.S. or another agency perhaps using someone,
you use sources to do your dirty work for you.
So that source isn't necessarily going to be on payroll and certainly their name isn't going to be on any list anywhere.
You know, you'd have a code name or something like that, maybe, maybe if it were written down.
But even then, the source identities are something that is kept under lock and key.
So your sources and then your subsource network, so you'd have a source with multiple sources.
So that source could be running a subsource network for you in any given place.
Those subsources might not, and what I mean by subsource, I know it sounds a little circuitous, but it's like this.
The people giving the information, actually collecting the information, then passing it on, they might not even know who they're working for.
They have no idea that the information is going somewhere back.
That's what compartmentalization means.
So, okay, if Epstein is collecting information, the people that are under him or the people that are one level below him, they have no idea where it's going.
They don't even know they're collecting information.
They might just be gossiping with him and they think, oh, he's just a man about town who's, you know, who's talking, you know, sharing pillow talk or something like that.
And that is the very nature of these operations.
And at the same time, he wouldn't be telling, you know, obviously you're not broadcasting that out to his circle, perhaps anyone in his inner circle other than maybe this Galeen Maxwell or any others,
that you wouldn't tell anyone unless you had to tell them.
So these people have handlers.
That's the way these operations work.
Is it just to protect methods here?
Just the reason why the leadership can't be more, the leadership can't say what this guy is saying specifically about Clinton and about paying off victims ahead of trials.
They wan