All-In PodcastWhy Prince Andrew was arrested for more than a sex scandal
Epstein files reveal Andrew shared UK trade secrets, not just attended parties. Giuffre recantations and JP Morgan settlements reshape the narrative.
EVERY SPOKEN WORD
105 min read · 20,737 words- 0:00 – 1:04
David Sacks introduces Saagar Enjeti and Michael Tracey
- DSDavid Sacks
Okay, everyone, by popular demand, we're doing an all-Epstein show today. My besties are all on vacation for ski week, so I'm taking this on solo. We have three different guests on, who all have very different interpretations and opinions of the Epstein story. Saagar Enjeti from Breaking Points believes that the Epstein story shows that there is a, quote-unquote, "Epstein class" that operates above law and accountability. He views this story as an indictment of our ruling elites. Michael Tracey is skeptical about many of the most malicious claims about Epstein, and questions whether they meet any kind of evidentiary standard. He has criticized the media feeding frenzy over what he has called Epstein Mythology. And finally, Kevin Bass, a citizen journalist, who's been tracking the released files and posting his findings on X, specifically in regards to Reid Hoffman, perhaps the figure in tech most closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein. Some of it gets heated, but hopefully you'll come away with new perspectives and great information. I felt like it was important to showcase a range of viewpoints on this issue. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and I'll describe my own point of view at the end of the show. And with that, here we go.
- 1:04 – 11:24
Reacting to the arrest of Prince Andrew in the UK, Epstein's global finance network
- DSDavid Sacks
Saagar, let me start with you. What is the import of the arrest of Prince Andrew in the UK this morning? I mean, is this a case of show us the man and we'll tell you the crime? I mean, it- obviously, it seems kind of coincidental that he's not being arrested for misconduct in the Epstein affair. He's being arrested on mishandling, I guess, trade secrets or-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Mm-hmm
- DSDavid Sacks
... public documents. So obviously, the timing of this is not coincidental.
- SESaagar Enjeti
No, it's certainly not coincidental, but I do believe that the facts do matter in this case, and, uh, unfortunately, you know, for Prince Andrew, for Lord Mandelson, the former ambassador, uh, to the United States from the UK as well, it is pretty clear-cut that they did violate their official duties. We should remember that the crux of this case involving Andrew is not just about some of the accusations that were made, although that is the genesis, let's say, of the investigation and of the interest. This is about Prince Andrew serving as a UK trade advisor and forwarding non-public information to Jeffrey Epstein that's been released, that's currently in the file. Some of it is involving scheduling. However, uh, Gordon Brown, this morning, said that he had actually shared some new information with Scotland Yard and the police. So none... It's not exactly just what's in the file, but it could potentially be other, uh, material that Gordon Brown and the Chancellery were able to investigate as to what Prince Andrew was sharing as part of a broader probe into Lord Mandelson, and the tip-off that he gave to Jeffrey Epstein about an upcoming bailout. And I do think that this does reveal a- quite a lot about Jeffrey Epstein, that next is the genesis of his rise to power, his wealth, and his influence. Something that involved, let's say, s- even some of the co-hosts, uh, let's say, on this very podcast, which is a deep financial knowledge of money laundering networks, of trying to be at the very forefront of moving money across the globe, which I believe is his real power and his influence, which is what enabled much of the behavior that much of the public is now horrified by.
- DSDavid Sacks
Okay, wait, I c- I can't let that just go by. What, what do you mean-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Sure
- DSDavid Sacks
... by involving co-hosts of this podcast?
- SESaagar Enjeti
Yeah, I'm talking about Jason. I, I actually thought that the Jason email, uh, was very interesting. So you'll see that in 2011, that Jeffrey Epstein is contacting Jason about Bitcoin. This is by-
- DSDavid Sacks
Right
- SESaagar Enjeti
... I saw, I watched your discussion. I'm not implicating him in any crime. I'm saying, if you watch and look at that email very closely, you are watching Jeffrey Epstein, a master money launderer and financial mastermind himself, be at the forefront of the Bitcoin technology and wondering about it in 2011, which, as Jason even pointed out in the last episode that you guys did about this, when Bitcoin was some $1 and some sort of open source project. Like, to me, that shows how at the forefront he was of new technology and new ways to move money surreptitiously across the globe, which is what I believe was his real strength and his, basically, um, his, his, uh, raison d'être, for being so useful to all of these different foreign governments and intelligence a- a- assets, including ours, Russia, Israel, various different Israeli... Or various different intelligence, uh, networks across the globe.
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah, let me just for, for viewers of this episode who didn't see that episode, let me just summarize what exactly happened there, 'cause I wanna just make sure that Jason's reputation is not unfairly impugned, and I don't think you're doing that-
- SESaagar Enjeti
No, yeah
- DSDavid Sacks
... but just to be absolutely clear about it. What happened was that Jason hosted an episode of This Week in Startups, roughly, I think in 2011, with a couple of the Bitcoin Core founders, and then Epstein reached out to him for an introduction to those people. I thought... And, and one of my takeaways from that was, like you said, Saagar, that Epstein was extraordinarily early to Bitcoin. He clearly had a nose for putting himself in the middle of things. I think 2011 is when I discovered Bitcoin, so that was relatively early. I thought it was almost comical the way that Jason was trying to warn Epstein, "Oh, you don't want to meet these guys."
- SESaagar Enjeti
Right. They're crazies.
- DSDavid Sacks
"These are some-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Yeah.
- DSDavid Sacks
"These are some crazies. They're, like, these crypto libertarians. They want to take down the government. There's no profit. Um, there's no investment opportunity here." In a way, it was kind of comical that Jason was trying to warn Epstein about the Bitcoin guys, rather than vice versa, but I don't really think people knew at that point in time-... what Epstein was involved in. Do you disagree with that? Do you think people-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Well-
- DSDavid Sacks
-should have known by 2011?
- SESaagar Enjeti
Well, David, I mean, I will say-
- DSDavid Sacks
What he was doing?
- SESaagar Enjeti
... well, there is a way back machine, and we can go back-
- DSDavid Sacks
Mm-hmm
- SESaagar Enjeti
... and we can look at what the Google results were, and we do have somebody who pled guilty. And look, I mean, this is for every individual, uh, to make up their own mind. You can't Google for solicitation of prostitution involving a minor. I mean, that was literally a matter of public record. I can only speak for myself. That's not really somebody I would involve myself with, even at a professional level. Uh, and I mean, I guess-
- DSDavid Sacks
Had you known?
- SESaagar Enjeti
Yeah.
- DSDavid Sacks
Had you known?
- SESaagar Enjeti
Well, you can Google it. It's literally public record.
- DSDavid Sacks
But it wasn't widely-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Yeah
- 11:24 – 34:10
Who was Jeffrey Epstein, and what is this story really about?
- DSDavid Sacks
I think maybe a question for each of you is, who do you think this guy ultimately was? I mean, you hear all sorts of theories. Let's-... say maybe the Epstein maximalist position would be that he was an intelligence asset or intelligence agent who was running a vast kompromat operation on his island, and th- thereby was corrupting and blackmailing the world's elite to someone who, uh... I, I think, Michael, you, you have a different point of view on that. Let me not characterize it. I'll let you guys do it, but Saagar, let me start with you. Who do you think this guy was, and ultimately, you know, at a 30,000-foot level, what do you think is going on here? What is this Epstein story really about? And then, Michael, I wanna go to you with the same question.
- SESaagar Enjeti
Yeah, sure. I mean, I do think that there is a very low-IQ, unfortunate, you know, explosion of, uh, accusations that are out there, and I wanna be very responsible in the way that I describe it. I think that Jeffrey Epstein was somebody who arose under very suspicious conditions, uh, in the 1980s, potentially involving Iran-Contra, knowledge specifically with arms traffickers, like Adnan Khashoggi and Douglas Lease, Steven Hoffenberg as well, and that these black market, money-laundering, tax evasion strategies were honed over a period which eventually ensnared various people, like Leslie Wexner and many other multi-billionaires. And that at the very same time, he also had, you know, his sexual proclivities, which I think at this point were well-known, and that those became, and became useful. His money-laundering-specific, uh, dir- duties and knowledge and usefulness, let's say, to the CIA, to various other intelligence assets, became a very useful part of the nexus in the post-Cold War environment. And that at the time, it was also socially known for a lot of Epstein associates that he had this bizarre practice of often, you know, seeking out massages, which in some cases, they are saying involving underage girls. And so to say that he was running a vast kompromat operation, I think, ascribes too much intention to what's really happening here. And w- the reason why I'm being intentional in my language is that what he clearly was doing was recruiting and running this, like, vast massage scheme, also involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and all across the world, Russian and Eastern European women, but also that this behavior was tolerated, in some cases, seen by a vast number of the global elite. Now, the 2007 su- circumstances of the non-prosecution agreement, you know, and Michael and I could go back on this, uh, forward a long time as to the circumstances of which that arose. However, I don't think, Michael, you would even deny that his access to wealth, power, and money did eventually allow him to get off with the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the eventual sweetheart deal, uh, that he gets with his hiring, let's say-
- MTMichael Tracey
I, I wouldn't agree with that, actually.
- SESaagar Enjeti
Well, I mean, I don't think the average Joe can just hire Ken Starr and, uh, private investigators and lawyers to tell some of the-
- MTMichael Tracey
Oh, sure
- SESaagar Enjeti
... purported victims and-
- MTMichael Tracey
I mean, his, his vast wealth-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Um-
- MTMichael Tracey
... enables him to secure-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Right
- MTMichael Tracey
... very high-powered legal represent- representation. No one can deny that.
- SESaagar Enjeti
Well, that's what I'm claiming, is that certain-
- DSDavid Sacks
But this whole concept of a sweetheart deal is a total canard that was-
- MTMichael Tracey
Okay, well, hold on, hold on
- DSDavid Sacks
... popularized by Julie K. Brown.
- MTMichael Tracey
Michael, I don't wanna get off on that yet.
- SESaagar Enjeti
Yeah.
- MTMichael Tracey
But l- just l- go back to my original question of, what is your 30,000-foot take on what this story is about? Who was this guy, in your view? I will answer that. However, I do wanna just stipulate up front that I think this reflex to have to offer some kind of totalistic assessment of who Jeffrey Epstein was at his very essence has fed into so much of the constant churn of algorithmic slop that has generated this hysterical frenzy around this issue and has led to people being totally deluded about what we're even talking about. What do most people... I, I, I have some surmises about Jeffrey Epstein. He definitely was a money manager who, as you mentioned, was sort of like this zealot character who did have an extraordinary cross-section of connections with people from across fields. And, you know, I just was looking through some of these records in the new Epstein files productions, and I was looking for something else, but there are... There's an archive of these old message pads that he had at his Palm Beach house.
- DSDavid Sacks
Mm-hmm.
- MTMichael Tracey
And I'm scrolling through, and it turns out Halle Berry left him a couple of messages. I had no idea that Halle Berry was ever in contact with Jeffrey Epstein. So you can always find somebody new and novel [chuckles] who apparently had a one dealing or another with him. But why are we talking about Jeffrey Epstein right now in February of 2026?
- SESaagar Enjeti
Hmm.
- MTMichael Tracey
Because Pe- he is believed to have been the most prolific child sex trafficker in American or perhaps world history, which is why this issue might now take down the British government. It's embroiling Norway. A minister in Slovakia had to resign over it. There's a new criminal investigation that was just launched in France, et cetera. That's what people conceive Jeffrey Epstein to have been, and that whole notion is based on just an onslaught of mythological nonsense that's pumped out daily by these YouTube shows, I won't mention names, podcasts, et cetera, social media personalities, who are driven by these perverse algorithmic incentives to be totally divorced from the facts, foreground this rampant speculation that ties in the Mossad, ties in unnamed other intelligence agencies with this presumed implication or this presumed, uh, s- uh, r- reality that, of course, we know for sure that Jeffrey Epstein was running this pedo crime ring, and we al- all... To the- they presuppose a conclusion that's just been floating out there in the ether, thanks to all this horrendous media coverage. I think this is the worst story of my adult lifetime in terms of the media coverage, and it implicates the alternative media, the mainstream media, and everybody in between. It's actually shocking. I will predict here and now that if we revisit this issue in, I don't know, two or three years, people will v- come to realize, if I have anything to do with it, that they were bamboozled on a mass scale. There's genuine fraud-... that has been rampant in term- the journalistic malfeasance. We're not supposed to ever consider the massive financial incentives where the Epstein industry is now something like I've estimated a billion dollars in terms of the payouts that have been given to purported victims who are allowed to just reimagine things that happened to them 20 years before as an adult, not as a child, but adult at the time of their claimed victimization, and then call themselves a sex trafficking victim. And then they can secure a couple million dollars tax-free from JP Morgan, and the media will hail them as these brave survivors without doing a single thing to check the veracity of any of their claims. You know why people are up- so upset about these redactions in the Epstein files? And I'm upset, too. I criticized Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna for the language of their bill that they crafted, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which they crafted in concert with Bradley Edwards, this extortionist, quote, unquote, "victim's lawyer," who's made a killing on this issue over the past 10 years, in conjunction with David Boies, another shyster. And Bradley Edwards, at his urging, Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie put in this giant carve-out to so-called transparency and disclosure into their bill, such that the DOJ was authorized to redact or withhold or conceal any information that could be the most tangentially tied to anything that's, quote, "victim-identifying." So they've been arguing frantically in federal court for the past few months that they're opposed to the disclosure of Epstein files, because it's going to terrorize all these beleaguered women. I don't know. Do you think that maybe if we did get full transparency, it might disrupt this sanitized, quote, "survivor" narrative that everybody pushes so credulously? I'll just give you one example, and I don't wanna go on for too long, and I... There's so many, uh, threads that I could pull here that you have to s- kind of rein me in. But one narrative that could disrupt if we actually did get genuine disclosure, which we're not, and in fact, Edwards et al. demanded that the entire archive be taken down because this disclosure was just too horrendously threatening to them. We would maybe get more insight into some of the government propaganda that's been allowed to promulgate unchecked. And Saagar, I wonder if you've corrected this on Breaking Points. You can let me know.
- DSDavid Sacks
Sure.
- MTMichael Tracey
But for months, uh, people, uh, politicians across the media s- the, the political spectrum, as well as the media writ large, have unthinkingly regurgitated this figure that there were over 1,000 victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Sometimes that gets upgraded to thousands of victims. That's what Pram- uh, Pramila Jayapal said at the Bondi hearing last week. Ro Khanna constantly blurts out this whole, this claim of over 1,000 survivors. And this is based on the July 6, 2025, FBI DOJ memo, which claimed that they, after a review of the evidence after the second Trump administration came in, they found that over 1,000 victims were, quote, "harmed by Epstein." So they used this very conspiculous- conspicuous weasel wordage, and it was very dubious to me the instant I read it. Turns out, you know, thank God on some level for the Epstein files, because there is a major revelation contained therein, which is that this whole- this number is a fraud. It's bogus. They, they, they admit in FBI memoranda that this number is based on a total of purported victims, the majority of whom were, would have been adults at the time of their claimed victimization anyway. But it... That includes the family members of alleged victims in that total number that's been bandied about.
- DSDavid Sacks
Well, Michael, how many alleged victims are there?
- MTMichael Tracey
Well, who knows? Why is the government deceiving the public about it? If people want to be mad about-
- SESaagar Enjeti
Can I jump in here, David?
- MTMichael Tracey
... Mad at Kash Patel-
- SESaagar Enjeti
I have a little bit about something.
- DSDavid Sacks
Sure, yeah. Alright, let, let Michael, let, let Saagar-
- 34:10 – 1:14:23
Michael Tracey explains "Epstein Mythology"
- DSDavid Sacks
it. All right, so Michael, let me kind of reset here.
- MTMichael Tracey
Okay.
- DSDavid Sacks
I'm, I'm not sure you've had a chance to kinda lay out your case for what you called Epstein mythology.
- MTMichael Tracey
Yep.
- DSDavid Sacks
So I wanna give you a chance to kind of just lay out your thesis here, that what's happening is actually a, a type of moral panic or feeding frenzy, a type of hysteria. You've compared it to the Salem witch trials.
- MTMichael Tracey
Yep.
- DSDavid Sacks
There was also the case in the 1980s of the whole Daycare child abuse-
- MTMichael Tracey
Satanic panic-
- DSDavid Sacks
The Satanic panic
- MTMichael Tracey
... that's what it's called. Yeah.
- DSDavid Sacks
Where I think hundreds of people went to jail or were prosecuted for that, it turned out.
- MTMichael Tracey
Uh, I don't know if it was hundreds, but-
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah
- MTMichael Tracey
... uh, more than enough to make it a extreme miscarriage of justice.
- DSDavid Sacks
So that's the comparison you've made. So I guess I wanna let you lay out that case in a clear way, 'cause I'm not sure that you've had a chance to quite do that yet.
- MTMichael Tracey
Yeah. I mean, I've definitely laid out my case on this score in many other venues and on many other occasions, but I guess not on this particular-
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah
- MTMichael Tracey
... podcast yet, so I'm happy to sketch it out. In terms of the Satanic Panic parallel, that's not one that I would have necessarily been most inclined to bring up until recently, just because there's now this new layer of the mythology that's added, been added with the production of these Epstein, quote, "files," where people are reading snippets of emails to signify some kind of coded messaging around cannibalism or around grotesque child sacrifice. That really wasn't a hallmark of the Epstein story so much before this enormous tranche of emails were released. And it relates to the Satanic Panic frenzy insofar as claims around such things as, like, truly grotesque child sacrifice, mutilation of infants, you know, bathing toddlers in blood, like, all the most nightmarish scenarios you could possibly dream up, were alleged in the 1980s and taken deadly seriously by the authorities, resulting in, as you alluded to, a good number of people actually being thrown in prison for many years. And it was turn- it was found to be just a-... gigantic hoax. Um, but another, maybe a more apt parallel that also would have been apt even before this latest record production, is that the Satanic Panic frenzy of the 1980s was, uh, uh, ultimately concluded to have originated really with one woman, who was just straightforwardly mentally ill, delusional, needed to essentially be institutionalized, and yet she would make claims about sex ab- child sex abuse that the authorities countenanced or gave credence to. And there's a similar thing going on with the Epstein mythology. Now, when I mention the Epstein mythology, I'm not talking about the 2007, 2008 Florida non-prosecution agreement or that whole scenario that Saagar brought up in piecemeal before. That's a different element of this whole story. The mythology developed later, mostly around 2014, with the introduction of these new claims by Virginia Roberts Giuffre and her lawyers, Bradley Edwards, Paul Cassell, later David Boies, in which she alleged that she had been child sex trafficked around the world, and that she knew that Epstein enforced this child sex trafficking operation via blackmail. And also, she made specific allegations against three s- particular individuals: Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Jean-Luc Brunel, and then also she accused a generic category of other high-profile prile persons, who she didn't specify, as also victimizing her, like prime ministers and, um, uh, politicians and s- presidents and so forth. Um, so that's the, basically the origin of what I would call the mythology, which is just sort of a, of a different order or magnitude than the initial Palm Beach prosecution-
- DSDavid Sacks
Okay, got it.
- MTMichael Tracey
... which was effectively a local crime. But in terms of the mytholog- uh, the parallel to the Satanic Panic, Virginia Roberts Giuffre was a d- profoundly disturbed, mentally unwell person, who was validated and legitimized, and now continues to be celebrated as some kind of martyr for truth, even though if anybody had used a lick of discernment about... as to her claims, it would've been found that she could not be treated so credulously. Maybe she needed some help, but this idea that she would be the basis for this global scandal that's rocking all these countries is just outrageous. And there are two others who are fundament- two other mentally ill women, and I don't say that even to be pejorative or derogatory at all. It's just objectively true if you take a look. Maria Farmer is one of these other, uh, definitely mentally ill persons who, for example, introduced or was integral in in- introducing this idea that Epstein had cameras set up in all his bedrooms and bathrooms, and was surreptitiously recording prominent people, so he could use it for blackmail. And then another one, Sarah Ransome, was one of the people who spurred the mythology, in large part, around the island. So she came to claim, after going through several mental health crises, that she had been systematically raped at the island, even though when she actually had to eventually give deposition, she really described nothing of the sort. She was also an adult when she went to the island voluntarily, and she described a, what it was effectively a sex- a consensual, you know, minor sexual encounter with Epstein, but she dramatized it radically in the wake. And people don't know... I mean, d- David, did you, did you know this, or does anybody know that there... in, in the public know, that despite everybody and their mother, [chuckles] including, like, Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, et, et al, decl- declaring that the Epstein property in the US Virgin Islands, the private island, that it's Rape Island or Pedophile Island, that there's never been a credible allegation of rape ever discovered that, that take, that took place on that island? Like, is that well-known, or am I crazy?
- DSDavid Sacks
No, it's not well-known. The only reason I knew is because I've heard you on a couple of podcasts-
- MTMichael Tracey
Right
- DSDavid Sacks
... so I thought it was i- important to get you on as a counterpoint. So just with respect to these three women, they did go to the island. Is, is that true?
- MTMichael Tracey
Sarah Ransome did.
- DSDavid Sacks
Okay.
- MTMichael Tracey
Um, Maria Farmer, no. Maria Farmer is the one who purported that she was actually the original Epstein accuser, and she was this great hero whistleblower, because she tried to sound the alarm way before all these other females were abused. She claims that in 1996, after she had been a 25-year-old employee of Epstein's, who basically sat at his front desk in his New York townhouse, that she was invited and accepted, uh, to go to the Ohio compound of Leslie Wexner to be an artist in residence of sorts, 'cause she was a paint- a painter. And then she claimed that over the course of her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell, she ended up filing a first, an attempted police report, and then went to the FBI, and she never really specified what it is that she claimed that she reported to the FBI with any clarity. But she told this tale about how Epstein had supposedly stolen these photographs that she had produced of her younger sisters, who were below the age of 18, so that she could use those photographs to paint paintings of her younger sisters in the nude. Now, I don't know. I mean, I guess that's a confession to production of child pornography, but technically speaking, but, you know... Um, but that's what she claimed, and then she also added that she had been sexually assaulted or abused or raped by both Epstein and Maxwell, and somehow over the course of that assault, at age 26, she had, like, a divine revelation, lit- literally, and realized that they were both pedophiles. This is how she recounted it years after the fact. And if you look at the police r- that FBI intake report or the complaint that was memorialized, that has come out, in terms of the, what was, uh, contemporaneously documented, she mentions nothing about a sexual assault. She mentions nothing about any kind of sex crime at all. She simply claims that these photos of hers were stolen, and there's never been any evidence that those pho- photos were actually stolen. So that's one person, and she's come be... These are, and they, these three women, Ransome, Farmer-... uh, Giuffre, Roberts Giuffre, were all integral in different dimensions of the mythology. They were incredibly important name plaintiffs in critical litigation, and they, you know, criminal investigations were launched based on the basis of her- their claims in various respects, and they're all just profoundly mentally ill, erratic, and wholly unreliable to the degree that if we're gonna have a international pedophilic mass hysteria narrative that's at all predicated [chuckles] on their claims, then we've entered into a fantasy land because it will never in the future hold up to any kind of rational re-evaluation or scrutiny at all.
- DSDavid Sacks
Okay, so Roberts Giuffre or, or VRG as-
- MTMichael Tracey
Yeah
- DSDavid Sacks
... as I think you've called her in your Substack.
- MTMichael Tracey
Yeah. [chuckles]
- 1:14:23 – 1:32:52
Kevin Bass joins to discuss Reid Hoffman's history with Epstein
- DSDavid Sacks
I've been following your feed quite a bit. You are basically a, a startup entrepreneur who had got interested in, in the Epstein files. I think you used AI to analyze them, and in particular, you've been looking at Reid Hoffman's story about Epstein, and you've put together an analysis. I think you've called it the Reid Hoffman files. I've been following your, your tweets, and it's quite interesting. Let's start with how you got into this, what got you interested, and, and how you've been doing your research.
- KBKevin Bass
Yeah, so originally I just saw that, uh, there was kind of a conflict, uh, on social media about Reid Hoffman. I didn't know much about, uh, the Epstein files or, or about that particular conflict, but I was curious. I built some really sophisticated AI tools, you know, mostly using, like, vectorized s- uh, SQL databases and, and some of the MCP stuff with the new agents, and, uh, for, for some other purposes, and so I wanted to port those over to see if I could resolve some of these questions. Uh, Elon had some very strong opinions about Hoffman's involvements with Epstein, and he's usually at least, uh... If he's not always directly on the bullseye, he's usually at least a few inches away, so I wanted to go check those out. And then, you know, I do- they, they came out in, I guess, late January, January 30th, the big ones that re- the big drop that recently happened, and so I just, uh, I started going through the Reid Hoffman part in particular. Uh, and I essentially started to try to organize, or I have organized most of my analyses around some core claims that Hoffman made about his involvement with Epstein. I've, I've just been asking the question: Are these claims true? Uh, are they supported by the record or are they contradicted by the record? And, um, overwhelmingly, like, absolutely overwhelmingly, uh, they appear to be contradicted relentlessly by the, uh, the, the drop that came out in January, um, 30th. If you want, I can go through some of the big ones, uh, and then I can-
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah, I mean-
- KBKevin Bass
... also talk about-
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah. Maybe, maybe a place to start is with Reid Hoffman's statement in 2019 to Axios. This is when, I guess, the Epstein scandal first, I think, became national news, and people who were closely associated with him felt the need to characterize their relationship with him, to distance themselves, to explain how they knew him or how closely they knew him. And Reid's statement at that time was the following. Let me just read this out. This is, uh, Reid Hoffman speaking: "My few interactions with Jeffrey Epstein came at the request of Joi Ito for the purposes of fundraising for the MIT Media Lab. Prior to these interactions, I was told by Joi that Epstein had cleared the MIT vetting process, which was the basis for my participation. My last interaction with Epstein was in 2015. Still, by agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice. For this, I am deeply regretful."
- MTMichael Tracey
Oh, give me a break.
- DSDavid Sacks
Is that statement accurate?
- KBKevin Bass
Not at all. Uh, and in fact, it's not just from 2019. Uh, he even reiterated this on February 4th this year on X repeatedly. He said, "I only know Jeffrey Epstein because of a fundraising relationship with MIT, which I very much regret. These meetings were all coordinated by Joi Ito, then director of MIT Media Lab." Uh, and he also says, "We... Yes, with Joi Ito, the director of MIT Media Lab, who asked me to he- help MIT fundraise with Epstein. I regret," blah, blah, blah. Like, none of that's, uh, at all true. Uh, there's very few mentions of even fundraising with MIT. I would even go so far as to say, I don't know... I, I've said it this way on, on, on some of my posts, but it's like the extent of the relationship between Epstein and Reid Hoffman, it almost looks like best friends. Like, my, my best friends I don't interact with as- anywhere near as much as, as, as Reid Hoffman and, um, and Jeffrey Epstein did over, you know, between 2013 and 2019. Um, you know, their constant contact, uh, there's something around on the order of about, a, about 400 initiations by Hoffman to Epstein. It wasn't just mediated by Joi Ito at all, and, uh, you know, their s- their sec- their assistants were in constant contact with each other. They had extensive financial relationships.... There's something like 42 different meetings, uh, that are documented. Around 20 are absolutely confirmed. Uh, they met in, in person for breakfast. They would, uh, spend each other- spend each other's- spend time with each other's, at each other's houses overnight, meeting ... Um, you know, Epstein met his wife. It is claimed that, by Hoffman, that he only was there for one night. Even the one time that we have absolutely documented that, documented that uh, he's referring to, he was there for two nights, and almost certainly there was two other i- island visits as well, in addition. Uh, it's an extraordinarily extensive personal and business relationship, and it's not just about Joi Ito. Now, Joi Ito was a really important part of it. Um, Joi Ito was sort of, uh, as far as I can tell ... Again, you guys know a lot more about this than I do, but as far as I can tell, really going through the files over the last couple of days, Joi Ito was sort of, um, Epstein's, uh, gateway into sort of academia, Cambridge, Harvard, science. That's, that's sort of his main, uh, gateway there. Uh, Reid Hoffman was his gateway into, uh, Silicon Valley, into tech, uh, the main guy. And, uh, so, so there is a very close relationship as well between Joi Ito and Hoffman, but there is also very much an independent relationship between Hoffman and Jeffrey Epstein, uh, uh, very much independent of Joi Ito.
- DSDavid Sacks
Okay, so, so Reid claimed that he only had a few interactions with Epstein. That's false. You're saying he had hundreds.
- KBKevin Bass
Hundreds.
- DSDavid Sacks
Including dozens of in-person meetings and-
- KBKevin Bass
Yes
- DSDavid Sacks
... stay, stay at the island at least once. You said for two nights, not one, and there were probably a second or third visit.
- KBKevin Bass
Yes.
- DSDavid Sacks
There was the stay at the townhouse. Reid claimed that all of his interactions were sort of mediated by Joi Ito and were about the MIT Media Lab. By the way, it's not clear why someone would feel s- compelled to spend so much time fundraising for MIT, which wasn't even their alma mater. So this whole explanation didn't really make a lot of sense from the beginning, but it's pretty clear that the topics of conversation were not about MIT or MIT Media Lab. In fact, I thought one detail that was really kinda interesting was their first interaction, or one of the first, was about they bonded over a book called Deception, which I haven't-
- KBKevin Bass
Yeah
- DSDavid Sacks
... I haven't read the book. I don't know what the thesis is, but it appears to justify the use of deception in certain circumstances. Anyway, I just think that was ironic, I guess, if nothing else.
- KBKevin Bass
Mm. Yes.
- DSDavid Sacks
But look, I, you know-
- MTMichael Tracey
Can I make a quick comment in mind? Or-
- DSDavid Sacks
Yes, go ahead. Yes.
- MTMichael Tracey
Okay.
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah, Michael, go ahead.
- MTMichael Tracey
Yeah.
- DSDavid Sacks
Do you want to be Reid's-
- MTMichael Tracey
So-
- DSDavid Sacks
... defense attorney in this context? [laughing]
- MTMichael Tracey
N- not, not exactly-
- DSDavid Sacks
[laughing]
- MTMichael Tracey
... although I end up, I guess, putting myself into a position where it can come across that way. I'm really trying to be the, the defense attorney for, like, sanity.
- 1:32:52 – 1:47:22
Michael Tracey responds to criticism
- MTMichael Tracey
look.
- DSDavid Sacks
Let me get you to react to this tweet that someone just at mentioned you on.
- MTMichael Tracey
Uh-oh, here we go.
- DSDavid Sacks
[laughs]
- MTMichael Tracey
A brilliant-
- DSDavid Sacks
And-
- MTMichael Tracey
... uh, feedback, um, uh, I'm sure.
- DSDavid Sacks
Well, this is... Okay, this is a guy, I don't know this guy, Present Witness. Um, but this is what he's saying is the evidence, okay? So I just... You know, I wanna get your reaction to-
- MTMichael Tracey
Evidence of what?
- DSDavid Sacks
Well, let me read this for people who are just listening and can't see the screen, and then I'll get your reaction to it. So he, he says, "Here's the evidence: $160 million from Leon Black, $50 million townhouse and power of attorney over Wexner's estate, cameras in his residence wired by Israeli government, compromising photos of Prince Andrew, Clinton, et cetera, confirmed sex trafficking of underage girls from Maxwell, Brunel, and others, teaching job with William Barr, parentheses, CIA. Khashoggi was a client of Epstein, parentheses, money laundering for intelligence, question mark. Advisor to Ehud Barak and the Rothschilds. Rummler, chi- who is the chief legal officer at Goldman Sachs and former White House counsel under Obama, was a key advisor and backup executor in his will. There are millions of files still redacted. None have been released by CIA, State Department. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone telling you that there's nothing to see here is attempting to whitewash the most important revealing intelligence-related story of our lifetimes." And then he calls you out here: "Michael Tracey doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof, and is cynically exploiting sexually abused women for engagement."
- MTMichael Tracey
[chuckles] Okay. I mean, first of all, I don't know what that guy is even arguing all that stuff is supposed to be evidence of. Like, what is the ultimate contention that he's claiming those myriad scattered data points are supposed to justify? I mean, it, it... That's, that, that's so- it's why- that's what's so strange about this story. Nobody can really ever articulate... Like, S- Saagar struggled to articulate what I suspect actually is his ultimate belief, which is that there was some kind of pedo trafficking operation. Like, he, I think, said that he agreed with the Thomas Massie quote that I read out to him, but on its face, that's sort of like a bizarre statement to make. So they latch onto this other peripheral stuff around intelligence and whatnot, and that guy said, "How dare anyone ever s- say there's nothing to see here?" And he ascribed that to me. I've never said there's nothing to see here. People tell me all the time that I allegedly have said there's nothing to see here, but I don't say that at all. I'm pretty much as obsessed, if not more obsessed, with this story than anyone at this point, to a degree that's probably not very healthy, like, [chuckles] mentally.
- DSDavid Sacks
But you're obsessed with it-
- MTMichael Tracey
So of course I don't say that-
- DSDavid Sacks
... but, but, hold on-
- MTMichael Tracey
But I'm obsessed with it from a different standpoint
- DSDavid Sacks
... You're obsessed with it in the s- Hold on, Michael, let me just-
- MTMichael Tracey
Yeah
- DSDavid Sacks
... let me just ask you about that. You're obsessed with it in the sense that you think this is a modern-day Salem witch trial.
- MTMichael Tracey
Right, which is fascinating.
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah, so you're fascinated from, like, a sociological standpoint, which is, have humans evolved beyond, you know, where they were hundreds of years ago, engaging in witch hunts and-
- MTMichael Tracey
Mm
- DSDavid Sacks
... things like that, or do you think it's in- interesting in other ways?
- MTMichael Tracey
I think it's interesting in other ways, definitely in that way as well, but there are other ways in which it's interesting. I think it's almost interesting as an anthropological survey of sorts among, you know, uh, elites, movers, and shakers, you could say, where Epstein did have this extraordinary ability to network and to convene people who probably otherwise would never have been convened. So I've been saying that I think Jeffrey Epstein is the only man on Earth who could have brought together for a friendly social powwow Noam Chomsky and Steve Bannon. Like, I'm almost jealous of that. I mean, I'm sure that would have been a very [chuckles] fascinating discussion to listen in on, right? And there are other examples. And so I think it's interesting from that perspective. I mean, I think uh, everything that... Every little piece of information that can be uncovered about Jeffrey Epstein's life is now almost intrinsically interesting, just given the salience of the story, right? So I guess I'm interested just from that perspective, 'cause, like, obviously he's now a historic, or world historic even, figure. And so yeah, I'm always, I'm always down to find out something new about what Jeffrey was up to. So sure, I think it's interesting politically, just in terms of how this can be leveraged into some sort of political battering ram against enemies. And, uh, you know, this is like the number one oppositional Trump narrative of the second term. It's almost-... Russiagate redux in the outsized prominence that Epst- that, uh, Democrats are giving it, in terms of what they bring up day after day in hopes of it undercutting Trump or bedeviling him. So-
- DSDavid Sacks
Yeah, it does-
- MTMichael Tracey
Just even from that perspective-
- DSDavid Sacks
It seems to be like the, the new, new Russiagate in, in that way, where every possible tangential fact is somehow connected.
- MTMichael Tracey
Correct.
- DSDavid Sacks
And it, but the whole thing kind of metastasizes and is used in a partisan, weaponized way.
- MTMichael Tracey
Yeah, and but-
- DSDavid Sacks
There's no question about that
Episode duration: 1:47:22
Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript
Transcript of episode CQq3Ocm98sY
Get more out of YouTube videos.
High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.
Add to Chrome