Skip to content

Podcast

Prince Andrew Arrested, Epstein Mythology, Reid Hoffman Files With Saagar Enjeti & Michael Tracey

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

Source ↗ ← All highlights
  • Epstein’s Financial Leverage Explained
    • Saagar argues Epstein’s power came from sophisticated money laundering and financial networks that enabled his influence.
    • He links Epstein’s early interest in Bitcoin to a pattern of exploiting novel financial tools for secrecy. Transcript: Saagar Enjeti It’s certainly not coincidental. But I do believe that the facts do matter in this case. And unfortunately, you know, for Prince Andrew, for Lord Mandelson, the former ambassador 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 Of the interest. This is about Prince Andrew serving as a UK trade advisor and forwarding non-public information to Jeffrey Epstein has been released that’s currently in the file. Some of it is involving scheduling. However, Gordon Brown this morning said that he had actually shared some new information with Scotland Yard in the police. So none, it’s not exactly just what’s in the file, but it could potentially be other 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 quite a lot about Jeffrey Epstein. The next is the genesis of his rise to power, his wealth and his influence, something that involved, let’s say, even some of the co-hosts, 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. (Time 0:01:36)
  • Jason Calacanis And Epstein’s Bitcoin Inquiry
    • David Sacks recounts Jason Calacanis’ 2011 email exchange where Epstein sought Bitcoin introductions.
    • He frames it as an example of Epstein inserting himself early into emergent technologies and networks. Transcript: David Sacks Wait, I can’t let that just go by. What do you mean by involving co-hosts of this podcast? Well, I’m talking about Jason. Saagar Enjeti I actually thought that the Jason email was very interesting. So you’ll see that in 2011, that Jeffrey Epstein is contacting Jason about Bitcoin. This is by, 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’etre for being so useful to all of these different foreign governments and intelligence assets, including ours, Russia, Israel, various different Israeli Or various different intelligence networks across the globe. Yeah. David Sacks And let me just for for viewers this episode who didn’t see that episode, let me just summarize what exactly happened there, because I want to just make sure that Jason’s reputation Is not unfairly impugned. (Time 0:03:05)
  • Myth Vs. Evidence In Epstein Coverage
    • Michael Tracey warns the public narrative around Epstein has become mythologized and sensationalized.
    • He predicts future reassessment will reveal large-scale journalistic and prosecutorial errors. Transcript: Michael Tracey However, I do want to just stipulate up front that I think this reflex to have to offer some kind of totalistic assessment of who Jeffrey Epstein was and 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 have some surmises about Jeffrey Epstein. He definitely was a money manager who, as you mentioned, was sort of like this zealite character who did have an extraordinary cross-section of connections with people from across Fields. And I just was looking through some of these records in the new Epstein Files productions, and I was looking for something else. But there’s an archive of these old message pads that he had at his Palm Beach house. And I’m scrolling through, and it turns out Holly Berry left him a couple of messages. I had no idea that Holly Berry was ever in contact with Jeffrey Epstein. So you can always find somebody new and novel who apparently had one dealing or another with him. But why are we talking about Jeffrey Epstein right now in February of 2026? Because 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 reality that, of course, we know for Sure that Jeffrey Epstein was running this pedo crime ring. And 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 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 terms of the journalistic malfeasance. (Time 0:14:47)
  • Questioning The ‘1,000 Victims’ Claim
    • Tracey highlights the DOJ’s “over 1,000 victims” figure as misleading and based on aggregated, ambiguous counts.
    • He argues the number inflation fueled political and media hysteria. Transcript: Michael Tracey 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 Sagar, I wonder if you’ve corrected this on breaking points. You can let me know. But for months, politicians across the political spectrum, as well as the media writ large, have unthinkingly regurgitated this figure that there were over a thousand victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Sometimes that gets upgraded to thousands of victims. That’s what Pramila Jayapal said at the Bondi hearing last week. Ro Khanna constantly blurts out this claim of over a thousand survivors. And this is based on the July 6th, 2025 FBI DOJ memo, which claimed that 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 conspicuous weasel wordage. And it was very dubious to me the instant I read it. Turns out, thank God on some level for the Epstein files, because there is a major revelation contained therein, which is that this number is a fraud. It’s bogus. They admit in FBI memoranda that this number is based on a total of purported victims, the majority of whom would have been adults at the time of their claim victimization anyway. But if that includes the family members of alleged victims in that total number, that’s been my alleged victims are there. Well, who knows? Why is the government deceiving the public about it? (Time 0:19:21)
  • Wexner Relationship Remains Unresolved
    • Saagar emphasizes gaps from the Wexner deposition and Epstein’s unusual control over Wexner’s finances.
    • He says more transcript transparency is needed to understand their relationship. Transcript: Saagar Enjeti No, David, it wasn’t resolved. Unfortunately, the entire transcript is not public. What we do know from the House Oversight Committee, at least what’s been released now so far, is Leslie Wexner said he was never questioned ever once by the FBI or the Department of Justice Involving this case. I will say, if you look at the track record of Leslie Wexner, it’s incredibly bizarre. He claims that F. Thiem was a con man who stole his money for decades. In 1991, we had the power of attorney that was signed over to him. He claims that Epstein was a financial genius and a wizard. We have the transferring of the townhome, which eventually there was some payment that was reconciled on the back end. But an incredible amount of control that Jeffrey Epstein had over Leslie Wexner’s finances, over the Wexner Foundation Foundation, which he used to funnel money to Ayyud Barak, the Former prime minister of Israel, support many Zionist causes under the Wexner Foundation, including the Wexner Fellowship currently at Harvard University. I do think it’s important for us to explore some more of that. There’s some very odd dealings with the beginnings of their relationship. Previous Epstein associates have testified that in 1992, which is shortly after power of attorney and all of that was acquired or the relationship, sorry, between Epstein and Wexner Began is that much of Epstein’s lifestyle exploded. Wexner does not even dispute that Epstein had vast control over his finances and even claims that he was stolen from by Jeffrey Epstein that their relationship is supposed to have ended Sometime, I think, in 2007. But he has not yet answered questions about this relationship in an open public forum beyond some statements. And he currently did issue an opening statement for the record. I personally would like to see the release of that transcript. I mean, all for transparency here in this particular case, he’s an 88 year old man. And I do think it’s genuinely bizarre. Oh, and not to even mention the modeling industry, which, you know, which Wexner himself was involved in. And there’s several emails, including Wexner’s own crude drawing in the Epstein birthday book involving boobs that he said that’s all Epstein ever wanted. So their relationship is bizarre. It goes back decades. Wexner maintains, as I said, that he was conned and that he was stolen from. (Time 0:27:25)
  • Origins Of The ‘Epstein Mythology’
    • Tracey traces the ‘mythology’ to Virginia Roberts Guiffre’s later, amplified claims and media packaging.
    • He contends selective amplification by lawyers and press created a sprawling narrative beyond original facts. Transcript: Michael Tracey 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 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 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 truly grotesque child sacrifice, mutilation of infants, bathing toddlers in blood, 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 found to be just a gigantic hoax. But 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 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 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 Sagar 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 Gouffre 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 particular individuals, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, John Luke Brunel. And then also she accused a generic category of other high profile persons who she didn’t specify as also victimizing her like prime ministers and politicians and presidents and so Forth. So that’s basically the origin of what I would call the mythology, which is just sort of a different order or magnitude than the initial Palm Beach prosecution, which was effectively A local crime. 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 As to her claims, it would have been found that she could not be treated so credulously. (Time 0:35:02)
  • Manuscript Strategy Pushed Sensational Names
    • Tracey cites discovery emails showing PR strategizing—‘throw anybody’s name’ to boost a book deal.
    • He uses this to question the reliability and motives behind some allegations. Transcript: Michael Tracey She’s not hallucinating everything. I’ve argued that she’s not so much a liar, I wouldn’t say. I’ve never directly accused her of lying about anything as such. I’ve said that she’s kind of confabulated in alternate reality. And that’s a little bit different because it doesn’t necessarily connote willful deceits. And it’s almost even more disturbing if you think about it. David Sacks But what’s your basis for that? The big one, I guess, is that in your view that she recanted her story about Dershowitz or? Michael Tracey Yeah, she recanted her story, not just about Dershowitz. That’s maybe the most well-known instance of her recanting one of her marquee claims. And it really only came about because Dershowitz was unusually motivated to actually pursue some sort of resolution through a very protracted litigation process against very high-powered Lawyers. I mean, one of the fallacies here is that these survivors, quote unquote, such as Virginia, are taken to be these beleaguered victims, et cetera, who had no power at all in this dynamic. And yet, I mean, they were represented by some of the most powerful and skillful lawyers in the country, such as David Boyce, who’s one of the best known lawyers of all time and was hugely Well-resourced. And also, Virginia Goufray became incredibly wealthy, maybe not as wealthy as you, David, but 20 estimates range from like 15, 20, $25 million. It’s hard to know because a lot of the settlement details are secret. So it wasn’t just this hapless victim who had no leg to stand on in order to make her claims. But yeah, Dershowitz, she ended up recanting her allegations. And bear in mind, it wasn’t just that she happened to level some accusation at some point, maybe in casual banter. It’s that she made allegations of herself having been victimized by Dershowitz sexually on at least six or seven occasions. And she described each individual instance of that victimization in vivid, graphic, almost grotesque detail, describing Dershowitz’s body parts, sexual proclivities, et cetera. And she did this in sworn affidavits and under deposition. So could theoretically even be subject to perjury charges should a prosecutor ever have been inclined to bring them, which of course they wouldn’t have been in this environment. But it goes much further. She had to recant claims against a Harvard professor, Stephen Cosselin, who she claimed she had intercourse with. She recanted even claims against John Luke Burnell, who’s another sort of actor or a player in this whole story that leads people to make their postulations about there being this supposedly International sex trafficking ring because he was like a modeling mogul. But he ends up getting arrested by French authorities under pressure from the US in 2019 after Epstein himself was federally indicted and arrested. And given the vagaries of the French legal system, which I don’t fully comprehend still in relation to the United States, he was in custody or incarcerated for quite a long time prior To any formal charges being brought. Eventually, she’s called to provide evidence against… Virginia is called from Australia to go to Paris to provide evidence against John Luke Brunel in 2021 in this format that is nothing that takes place in the U.S., but it’s like where both The defense and the prosecution have an ability to question or have colloquies with the accuser. Well. And her lawyers had to admit that this memoir that she produced or memoir manuscript that she produced in 2011 and 2012, that she was sort of scheming with this ghost writer who was potentially Going to work with her, Sharon Churcher, a journalist at the Daily Mail. She was scheming about how they could get the biggest possible book deal or even like a movie deal or some kind of entertainment package deal. And she already had been paid 160,000 plus by the Daily Mail plus serialization revenue for having done an interview with them and given over the Prince Andrew photo. And then they wanted to marshal or leverage that momentum publicity-wise from the Daily Mail articles in 2011 into a book. And so Saren Churcher in this email exchange, you can go read it, it came out in litigation, Hey, yeah, you know what? (Time 0:45:20)
  • Settlement Mechanisms Shaped Narratives
    • Tracey explains the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund used non-adversarial claims to rapidly pay large, tax-free settlements.
    • He argues that lax criteria and payouts created incentives that inflated claims. Transcript: Michael Tracey Epstein dies, August 10th, 2019, right? A feeding frenzy breaks out in terms of litigation that is brought against his estate. Because at that point, Epstein is obviously no longer available to contest any claims that are made against him. And libel laws cease to apply. People are aware, obviously, that he was very wealthy. He wasn’t like a multi-multi as a lot of people suspected at the time. But according to his disclosure of assets when he was arrested, his net worth was like $650 million. So still a pretty big estate. And so because of this flood of lawsuits against the estate, the executors of the estate, Darren Indyke, and Richard Kahn decide to agree to coordinate with the victim’s lawyers, Bradley Edwards, David Boyes et al., to set up basically a mediation program that they call the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, which is a holistic settlement process that victims or alleged Victims could submit claims to. And then there would be a mediator brought in to evaluate the claims and decide what amount of money to give out. So there wouldn’t have to just be like a flood of individual lawsuits. They could kind of consolidate it. And so they set up a settlement model, basically, for the Episcene estate, which was expressly non-adversarial, meaning there’d be no adversarial scrutinization of the claims that Were made to justify somebody’s entitlement to millions of dollars. People, claimants were entitled to as much as $5 million from just this one settlement fund. And it was tax-free by the way. David Sacks Wait, this is with, this is with Deutsche Bank. Michael Tracey No, no, this is the Epstein estate. I’m getting to Deutsche Bank because it ties into the Epstein estate. From the Epstein estate, epsom estate was first in the chronology of settlements and so they set up a settlement model right so non-adversarial confidential tax-free because they Claim that it applies under that it could be categorized under the irs code as like a compensation for an injury so therefore you don’t have to pay income taxes on it um and so that gets Set up, right? David Sacks And then- And who adjudicates that? Michael Tracey The court in the U.S. Virgin Islands, because the state was domiciled in the U.S. Virgin Islands, appointed on the recommendation of both parties, an independent mediator or administrator, Simona Lelchuck, her name is, who specialized, she claimed anyway, In this sort of thing. And like she had an extra sensitivity towards sexual assault victims, she claimed. I mean, it’s kind of a phony. We don’t want to get sucked into that necessarily tangent. (Time 0:56:30)
  • Demand Primary Evidence Before Belief
    • Apply evidentiary rigor before accepting sensational claims and check primary records like court dockets.
    • Scrutinize the motives of litigators and media when evaluating high-profile allegations. Transcript: David Sacks So look, I think it’s very important that we hold this process to evidentiary standards. Like you’re saying, I think that people’s motivations need to be examined, especially like the lawyers who are bringing these cases who are, you know, reaping hundreds of millions Of dollars. So I think you are, and I think even Sagar admitted this, I think are playing an extremely important role in this process by bringing some rigor and accountability to a lot of these claims. I think that’s really important. At the same time, you’re not really offering an explanation of so many aspects that are so interesting about Epstein. I’m not saying it’s necessarily your duty to do that, but I’m wondering, do you have a theory of how did he accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars? How did he get so connected? Some people like Mike Benz have said that it all goes back to Burr Stearns, where he says that one of his accounts was BCCI, which was this notorious international bank that was involved. It eventually was shut down because it was involved in international money laundering and crimes, things like that. So I think this is Mike Benz’s theory. In any event, do you have a theory that would provide a satisfactory explanation for so many of the threads that we see? Or do you just feel like it’s not really your job to do that? And your job is really more just to poke holes in, you know, what are some of the more outlandish claims of politicians or lawyers? (Time 1:05:52)
  • AI Sifts Reveal Extensive Hoffman Contacts
    • Kevin Bass used AI tools to parse the Epstein files and found extensive communications between Reid Hoffman and Epstein.
    • He says Hoffman’s public minimizations conflict with the files’ record of frequent contact. Transcript: Kevin Bass So originally, I just saw that there was kind of a conflict on social media about Reid Hoffman. I didn’t know much about the Epstein files or about that particular conflict, but I was curious. I built some really sophisticated AI tools, mostly using vectorized SQL databases and some of the MCP stuff with the new agents and for some other purposes. And so I wanted to port those over to see if I could resolve some of these questions. Elon had some very strong opinions about Hoffman’s involvement with Epstein, and he’s usually at least, 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, they came out in, I guess, late January, January 30th, the big ones, the big drop that recently happened. And so I just, I started going through the Reid Hoffman part in particular. 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 just been asking the question, are these claims true? Are they supported by the record or are they contradicted by the record? And overwhelmingly, like absolutely overwhelmingly, they appear to be contradicted relentlessly by the drop that came out in January 30th. If you want, I can go through some of the big ones and then I can also talk about… David Sacks Yeah, 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 are closely associated with him felt the need to characterize the 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 Reid Hoffman speaking. My few interactions with Jeffrey Epstein came at the request of Joey Ito for the purposes of fundraising for the MIT Media Lab. Prior to these interactions, I was told by Joey 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. Michael Tracey Oh, give me a break. David Sacks Is that statement accurate? Kevin Bass Not at all. And in fact, it’s not just from 2019. He even reiterated this on February 4th this year on X repeatedly. He said, I only know Jeffrey Epstein because of fundraising relationship with MIT, which I very much regret. These meetings were recorded by Joey Ito, then director of MIT Media Lab. And he also says, yes, with Joey Ito, the director of MIT Media Lab, who asked me to help MIT fundraise with Epstein, I regret, blah, blah, blah. None of that’s at all true. There’s very few mentions of even fundraising with MIT. I would even go so far as to say, I don’t know. I’ve said it this way 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 best friends. I don’t interact with us anywhere near as much as as as Reid Hoffman and and jeffrey epstein did over you know between 2013 and 2019 um you know they’re constantly in contact uh there’s Something around on the order of about 400 initiations by hoffman to epstein it wasn’t just mediated by joe yito at all and uh you know there’s their second their were in constant contact With each other. They had extensive financial relationships. There’s something like 42 different meetings that are documented. Around 20 are absolutely confirmed. They met in person for breakfast. They would spend time at each other’s houses overnight. Epstein met his wife. It is claimed by Hoffman that he only was there for one night. Even the one time that we have absolutely documented that he’s referring to, he was there for two nights. And almost certainly there was two other island visits as well. In addition, it’s an extraordinarily extensive personal and business relationship. (Time 1:14:52)
  • Guilt By Association Dangers
    • Michael warns that guilt-by-association is rampant and that mere interaction with Epstein doesn’t prove complicity.
    • He notes media framing often conflates contact with criminal enabling. Transcript: Michael Tracey Look, I, you know- Can I make a quick comment? Yes, go ahead. Yes. Yeah, Michael, go ahead. Do you want to be Reed’s defense attorney in this context? Not exactly, 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 defense attorney for like sanity. Yeah, go ahead. So here’s what I would say. I have to just reject the whole premise of this discussion that is so ubiquitous now, which is that anybody who so much as exchanged a shortening email with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know Reid Hoffman apparently had a closer relationship with Epstein than just one email here or there. But the principle that anybody who had some interaction of some degree, to some degree or another with Jeffrey Epstein, now has something that they have to issue these mealy-mouthed, Melodramatic statements of profound apology for is just so tedious and ridiculous. What are they guilty of? If the implication is that they’re by association guilty of enabling pedophilic sex trafficking, that is a flagrant misconception. Do people know, how come it’s never clarified that Jeffrey Epstein was never even accused of committing any illicit sexual acts against any person under the age of 18 after the year 2005. So I don’t know what years Reid Hoffman and Jeffrey Epstein interacted, but this idea that he was like looking the other way while all these preteens were being raped is just nonsense, But the media never clarifies it. So now we have everybody from Noam Tromsky to Steve Bannon being told that their reputation is in tatters and they are themselves like by association, some sort of like sex criminal Enablers. And it’s just a, it’s just a total fantasy. So Michael panic. Yeah. Kevin Bass Michael, I think this, I think you’re making some really interesting points. Um, I think they’re important. I think. I (Time 1:21:45)
  • ‘Trafficking’ Has Become Ambiguous
    • Tracey says ‘trafficking’ is a nebulous legal category now used broadly, complicating public understanding.
    • He urges precision in defining crimes versus consensual adult interactions labeled retroactively. Transcript: Michael Tracey I mean, I understand the underlying facts to the greatest degree that I can ascertain them. And I think that they are just chronically and almost unbelievably mischaracterized everywhere you look. David Sacks Let me get you to react to this tweet that someone just mentioned you on. Oh, here we go. Michael Tracey A brilliant feedback. David Sacks Well, this is okay. This is a guy, I don’t know this guy, the present witness, but this is what he’s saying is the evidence. Okay. So I just, you know, I want to get your reaction to, 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, Princey’s CIA, Khashoggi was a client of Epstein. Parentheses, money laundering for intelligence, question mark. Advisor to Ehud Barak and the Rothschilds. Rumler, who is a chief legal officer at Goldman Sachs and former White House counsel under Obama, was a key advisor and backup executive as well. 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 Tracy doesn’t understand the difference between evidence and proof and is cynically exploiting sexually abused women for engagement. Okay. Michael Tracey I mean, first of all, I don’t know what that guy is even arguing all that stuff is supposed to be evidence of. What is the ultimate contention that he’s claiming those myriad scattered data points are supposed to justify? I mean, that’s what’s so strange about this story. Nobody can really ever articulate. Like, Sager 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 Massey quote that I read out to him. But on its face, that’s sort of like a bizarre statement to make. So they latch on to this other peripheral stuff around intelligence and whatnot. And like I said, how dare anyone ever 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. (Time 1:32:41)
  • Stay Open And Evidence-Driven
    • Be open to updating conclusions as new evidence emerges and avoid rigid alignment with one narrative.
    • Insist on balanced coverage and cross-check claims against primary documents before amplifying them. Transcript: David Sacks Well, look, I think both of you have performed very valuable services for the public in regards to this whole episode. I think, Michael, you are asking really important questions about evidentiary standards and what is the basis for some of the more, let’s call them Epstein maximalist claims out there Again, about this global pedophile ring and so forth. And I think you’re right that when you’re talking about crimes, you have to be evidence-driven and there is a little bit of a feeding frenzy here. And it is appropriate to ask what the motivations are of everyone involved in the story. And you’re one of the only people who are doing it. Although it does seem like you are making a difference. There does seem to be a vibe shift a little bit around what you’re doing. Michael Tracey Yeah. Cause most people who are like, who have their brains wired in a normal way, which would not include me, would probably have like a negative emotional reaction to being inundated day In and day out with accusations of personally being a pedophile or harboring like depraved sexual fantasies of molestation of children or whatever. But obviously, that is not the case for me. But I can withstand it because I’m used to the torrent of vitriol. But most people, I think, probably would be dissuaded from taking a certain angle on a certain subject if that’s what they had to endure. David Sacks Well, the mob does not like being accused of being a mob. And their defense mechanism seems to be to accuse anyone who points out some of these problems and the logic of basically somehow being involved in the crimes that they’re alleging. So in any event, I do think that you are performing a valuable service. (Time 1:41:42)