Today we have as our guest a pioneering investigative journalist and author who for two decades has been putting
mainstream media reporting into a broader context and providing a more comprehensive picture of the world.
Nice to have you back with us, James Corbett.
I'm delighted to be here, thank you for inviting me.
James, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the recent release of the Epstein files.
Perhaps we should start with that: How do you assess the credibility of this latest release of the three million files?
That's actually an interesting question, because I tend to say that I don't doubt the credibility of the
published documents, but I mean that in a particular context.
I believe that these are really documents that the Justice Department has in its files and has been
working with in connection with the Epstein case.
However, some of the most sensational claims and ideas in these files do not, of course, come directly from
Jeffrey Epstein's personal internal emails, for example.
It is rather an anonymous tip that the FBI received from an anonymous person and that is presented in a document.
I understand that the average citizen, digging through the records here and there, sees an FBI document with a rather
sensational claim and immediately says, "Oh, look, here's the proof from the FBI that such and such event took place,"
when in fact it's just an anonymous tip that may or may not have been investigated and may or may not be credible.
So the evidence itself is credible insofar as it is actually a document that I am
convinced really comes from the Ministry of Justice.
However, this does not mean that it actually reflects the truth.
And once you get into such details, you will realize that they do indeed publish documents, but some of these
documents may not bring us closer to the truth, but actually distract us from the truth.
Right.
The idea that this might be in some sense a "limited disclosure" I think is correct by definition, since we know that we only have
about half -or so- of the 6 million pages of documents in the Justice Department's Epstein
files, at least that's what they themselves say.
But I have noticed that there are people in the independent media who regard the whole
thing, everything contained here, as worthless.
And in general, these are people who have not spent a second looking at these files or
weighing the evidence in relation to the documents.
I wish it was that easy to just dismiss this, say it's a distraction, and move on to
something else and not have to look at the documents.
But unfortunately, the reality is that we generally have to actually make serious efforts to understand, report,
make connections, find documents and determine the actual value of these documents and the evidence they contain.
That's a lot of work. And I understand why many people don't want to deal with it.
So I certainly think that these documents contain valuable information, even if I am sure that they
do not reveal the bottom of the Epstein rabbit hole.
Right, and you've started doing that and you've already published a lot about it.
So let's start with the contents of these files.
Probably one of the most horrifying and frightening parts of the files is the one you titled "Epstein's black market in babies".
Can you briefly tell us what it's all about?
There are, unfortunately, disturbing parts of these files, documents, et cetera, that suggest that there are at least -
again, there's no hard evidence here - multiple allegations against Epstein and Maxwell and possibly others that
used some of these women, these victims, as human incubators.
In fact, we have a particularly disturbing document that I have, which is a series of diaries of a
person who was a victim of Epstein and was in therapy.
This person left detailed diary entries in coded form about how she was abused as a human incubator.
Among other things, she describes how a fetus was flushed down the toilet and other truly reprehensible things.
When you put all these things together, a clear picture emerges.
And in combination with some other reports that we have known for some time, an even clearer picture emerges.
Last year, I published an in-depth article on "Epstein's Eugenics, the Plan to Fertilize Humanity," which focused on
the part of the Epstein story that became at least partially known in 2019 but was never really thoroughly reported.
I talked about the many people who said that Epstein had talked about fertilizing humanity with his genes as
part of a bizarre breeding project he wanted to run from his Zorro Ranch in New Mexico.
I reported on this last year, addressing the many, many connections between Epstein and eugenics
and various scientists and the scientific community.
And still more pieces of this puzzle come to light, not only with the story about babies on the black market and whatever that may
say about the actual sale of some of these babies, but also in the correspondence between Epstein and some researchers who were
literally working on cloning, including human cloning and other such things that were
talked about in Epstein's personal correspondence.
So there's definitely a much bigger story that I've hardly seen anyone report on.
Wow, now I'm moving on to the next topic because we only have a short time.
Could you briefly explain what Pizzagate is and what these new Epstein files tell us about Pizzagate?
During the 2016 presidential election campaign in the United States, John Podesta, then Hillary Clinton's
chief of staff, was the victim of a spear phishing attack.
Essentially, he received an email to his Gmail account stating that his account was being hacked from Ukraine and
that he had better change his password, along with a link.
And Podesta, idiot that he is, apparently asked his IT team if this was legitimate.
And they said yes.
So he changed his password.
And lo and behold, we have the hack of the Podesta emails.
At least that is the story that is told about where this hack of the emails came from.
Anyway, in that email pit, certain people found evidence of some sort of code where pizza was apparently used in some sort of
mysterious reference system for some sort of pedophile sex ring.
And that was associated with a pizzeria in Washington, D.C.
And there are a lot of weird connections and weird social media posts and other things like that in this story.
But people may remember this story from about a decade ago that culminated in an actual shooting at this pizza place when someone
came in, convinced he was going to expose the whole incident, and somehow ended up shooting
up a closet with a bullet and getting arrested.
And from that point on, of course, any discussion of Pizzagate was derided as a completely crazy conspiracy theory, a theory
of the worst kind and probably part of some kind of Russian election interference campaign or something along those lines.
At least that's how it was portrayed in the mainstream media and made fun of by people on certain online forums like Reddit and
other pro-system websites until this latest release of Epstein's emails appeared, which again shows a strange cluster in Epstein's
correspondence discussing and evaluating pizza in extremely strange and puzzling ways that
make no sense when talking about literal food.
I pointed out some examples of this in my recent article "10 Things I Learned from the Epstein Files," where I link to
some of the news histories Epstein was involved in where people were talking about "Po Pizza" and things like that.
The pizza monster.
It's about a pregnant woman and the fact that this is the pizza, and things like that.
Again, people can make up their own minds and see that there is obviously a strange kind of code here.
And maybe Epstein's defenders, if there are such people, will say that these are people who are taking this
weird, crazy conspiracy theory from the Internet and making fun of it, or something like that.
But I would invite people to look at the emails themselves and draw their own conclusions about what those many, many
references to pizza and grape juice, "only you and I know what that means" and other such cryptic references might mean.
Which people from Epstein's network stand out to you as particularly remarkable?
I know that's a difficult question.
There are many, but perhaps you can choose the one or two most important ones.
There are far too many.
But that's an excellent question, because we need to start looking at the individuals and their connections to each other.
One person I came across by chance was Kathy Ruemmler, a name I hadn't heard before.
I had never really thought about Kathy Ruemmler or who this person is.
But I pointed out in my episode on this last week that there was an exchange of letters between Epstein and this Kathy Ruemmler
about the possibility of genetically engineering pigs so that they don't have cloven hooves so that they are
kosher and therefore, I assume, edible for Jews and Muslims.
It was just such a strange email that I pointed it out.
And from then on I started to follow the thread: Who is this Kathy Ruemmler?
Well, as it turns out, she worked in the Obama administration in the early 2010s. Until she was forced to leave, or until she left
to start her own business, and eventually ended up at Goldman Sachs, where I believe she was
a legal assistant or an attorney on their team.
Apparently, at one point she was considered to be brought back into the Obama administration as Attorney General.
But apparently that didn't work out because, as it turned out, she had been involved:
Remember the story from Colombia where some Secret Service agents and other White House staffers had traveled ahead of
the Obama administration to an event in Colombia and were all arrested for escorts and prostitutes, etc.
Well, apparently some of the latest correspondence shows that Kathy Ruemmler was involved and helped cover up these
incidents, and that she sought PR advice from Epstein on how to deal with the PR fallout from these incidents.
Bizarre.
So once again there are some strange connections there.
In short, apparently Goldman Sachs just fired Kathy Ruemmler from their legal team.
We have of course now heard from Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the USA, who had to give up his
seat in the House of Lords because of the current scandal.
And now there are questions about the current British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and what he knew and when
and why he ignored the information already known about the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein.
However, I think Epstein's connections to Israeli intelligence are probably more relevant.
For example, he hosted Ehud Barak's personal assistant and a former Israeli military intelligence officer in his Manhattan
apartment for weeks at a time, plus Epstein's many, many relationships with the Israeli government, Ehud
Barak and various business deals that were transacted.
There was the interesting, very frank comment that Epstein made to Peter Thiel when he said,
"As you know, I'm a Rothschild representative."
Was that meant as a joke or was it serious?
Well, he certainly had a relationship with the Rothschilds, both with Ariane de Rothschild from the Swiss Rothschild
family in particular and with the Rothschild Group in general.
I can't remember exactly which bank branch it was, but it was one with which he had a contract for 20 million
dollars and for which he managed some of their funds.
So here, too, there is a whole thread that needs to be untangled.
And then there are Epstein's many, many connections to the big tech oligarchs like Elon
Musk, Reid Hoffman and other people like that.
We can currently observe Musk and Hoffman arguing in a tweet war over who is more guilty in the Epstein files.
And then there's this connection between Epstein and a whole range of scientists and people with interesting backgrounds.
Of course the well-known scientists like Stephen Hawking, but also some interesting scientists like George Church, who most
people probably don't know, but who is probably one of the scientists most closely
associated with modern eugenics at the moment.
So again, there's a lot to explore. And unfortunately, that's too much for one person to handle, which is why I think this
needs to be part of a collective open source initiative to really start reporting on these different data points.
And why do you think the establishment, the US government, released these files right now?
Who benefits from this?
Well, yes, since we know that at least half of the documents have not yet been published, the real question is: what
has not been published and why has it not been published?
I think that's probably the more important side of the question, because there's no doubt that the release of
literally millions and millions of pages of documents, even if they're all 100% true, creates a tidal wave.
And I think if there is a strategy here, it could be the tidal wave strategy.
According to the motto: "Here is a tidal wave of documents.
Of course, it's not half of the documents we want to keep to ourselves, but here's half.
It's a few million pages, have fun with it." And some people will be crushed by the
publication, but the oligarchy itself will survive.
That could be one of the factors at play here. Of course, this is all speculation, as I'm not privy to the decisions being made
internally, but it seems that there is at least some sort of "flood the zone" "flooding" technique at work here, with
so much information being released that those trying to put these pieces together are in some ways overwhelmed.
I think to the extent that it's a coordinated or elaborate plan, I would assume that's the strategy that's
being used rather than asking why they're releasing it now.
It's more about why they publish it this way.
Right.
And what should we do with this information?
Wonderful.
Maybe one last question, because there are the supporters of QAnon and this secret military
operation that is supposed to be behind Trump.
They are really happy about the files because this proves that QAnon is right and Trump is our guy and he
is draining the swamp and exposing the establishment.
I mean, what do we know about Trump himself being involved in this, and what is your opinion,
what would you say to these QAnon supporters?
I've seen the online discussions about QAnon being right.
And so I'm tempted to say that QAnon was wrong, but that's not even right.
I would say that QAnon was right in exactly the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day.
So they happen to be right about some of the things that may have been claimed during this QAnon operation.
But QAnon was wrong about many, many, many, many very specific identifiable things that were said, at least under
the name of this QAnon account, originally on 4chan and then on 8chan and wherever else it ended up online.
And I have documented this in my documentary about Hopium, "A Brief History of Hopium" .
So if you want to find out more, go to CorbettReport.com/hopium.
And I'll go into just some of the very specific things that were completely wrong, going back, of course, to the very first post
by Q on 4chan that talked about "Hillary Clinton has been arrested, folks, and it's all falling
apart and it's all happening on such and such a date."
And guess what happened on that date? Absolutely nothing.
And they were wrong over and over again with all these specific predictions that different people would be
arrested at different times and that it was over, that the Deep State was finished and so on.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong again, wrong in every respect.
Only right when QAnon published the news about Epstein.
Just one example, at least three years after I covered Epstein in a 2015 podcast on political pedophilia, where I talked about
Epstein and the Prince Andrew story and everything else at the time - But I certainly don't take any credit for publishing that
story, because there were people like Nick Bryant, who has been working on this case for decades and was actually
the one who published Epstein's little black book and the flight logs online in the first place.
So people like that were right.
Nick Bryant was right.
QAnon just happened to pick up some of this information and regurgitate it, and took it from other people.
And now people are saying that QAnon was right.
That is wrong.
And QAnon was wrong on all the major points QAnon claimed about the White Hats on the inside coming to save the day,
saying "don't worry folks, Trump in 2016, 17, is the end of the Deep State, and we don't have to worry about that anymore.
The good guys have taken over."
Wait a minute, that was all utter nonsense, utter nonsense designed to keep people quiet and
prevent them from actually demanding justice.
And so I hope we have learned from all this that QAnon was wrong on all the important points and only
right when it copied the work of real enlighteners.
Thank you for your assessment.
What two or three independent sources would you recommend to people as the best to better
understand the Epstein network and Epstein himself?
I would definitely say that you should familiarize yourself with the work of Whitney Webb.
She wrote the two-volume work "A Nation Under Blackmail" which is well over a thousand pages of densely packed information with
extensive footnotes and literally hundreds and hundreds of references and links that not only point to the Epstein story,
but also give insight into the larger issue of blackmail and espionage, the underworld of crime and organized crime,
and how these things relate to the political machine, etc.
It is an incredibly well-documented, extensive work.
And from there, of course, interested parties can not only read Whitney Webb's work at Unlimited
Hangout, but also my interviews with her on this topic.
And if I may do a little self-promotion...
I would refer people again not only to my recent podcast episode, an article on this topic about what I learned from the Epstein
files, but also to the previous recording that I talked about in terms of Epstein's
eugenics plan to fertilize humanity with his seed.
Because I think that's an incredibly important part of it that hasn't been studied enough.
Another piece of research that I think should be highlighted is a recent post by Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo, who has looked closely
at these new Epstein documents and what they say about the connections between Epstein, Gates and Rockefeller in the
pandemic infrastructure that was built in the 2000s and 2010s.
And there are documents in this new release that show more about how that came about and how pandemics have been weaponized and
funded to make certain people in good positions a lot of money.
So this is an incredibly important research project that Sayer Ji has carried out there.
Thank you very much, James, for this comprehensive information.
We will definitely include all the links below the video so that everyone can take a
close look for themselves, as you said before.
Thank you for coming back to Kla.TV and sharing your knowledge.
Thank you
Kla.tv. The voice for clarity.