Valuetainment - August 15, 2025


＂Epstein’s Most Likely Mossad＂ - Andrew Bustamante REVEALS Israeli Spy Tactics Targeting Elites


Episode Stats


Length

18 minutes

Words per minute

187.1441

Word count

3,418

Sentence count

233

Harmful content

Misogyny

1

sentences flagged

Hate speech

4

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, I sit down with Pat McAfee to talk about the CIA s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and why they think it's a good idea to have an American citizen as an intelligence asset. We talk about why it makes sense to have a U.S. citizen as a CIA asset.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 CIA, Andrew, so guy calls me, he says, Pat, I'm being offered to be part of CIA to give
00:00:10.520 intel, okay?
00:00:11.720 He's in a niche industry that a lot of people have access to him and he meets a lot of people.
00:00:16.980 Think money, finance, you're in front of a lot of different interesting people.
00:00:22.960 Why is that appealing to somebody like him to say, yes, I want to do this job versus
00:00:28.120 why, what is the risk for him to say, never, ever work with the CIA, even if they're trying
00:00:33.100 to use you for a project like that?
00:00:34.260 U.S. citizen, right?
00:00:35.100 U.S. citizen.
00:00:35.680 So this is, it's such a hard question because even when we're at CIA and we're briefed on
00:00:42.740 these operations, it's really hard to understand why the fuck somebody would say yes.
00:00:47.580 It's so nonsensical to say yes to be an American citizen that works for the CIA, that supports
00:00:52.460 as an asset the CIA because the bureaucracy is horrible when you're a badged officer of
00:00:57.660 CIA, a blue-badged officer.
00:00:59.360 It's even worse when you're a U.S. citizen that's encrypted, that's under layers of
00:01:03.740 confidentiality and compartmentalization.
00:01:06.700 But people say yes, and there's two big reasons why people say yes.
00:01:09.740 One, they truly believe in helping America, like legit, real, blue-blood, red-blood Americans.
00:01:19.000 And they do it a lot, Pat.
00:01:20.760 It's fucking amazing because if CIA were to call me, the only reason I would say yes is
00:01:24.900 because I worked for them in the past.
00:01:26.980 But if I was a $100 million business owner and CIA said they wanted me to report, I'd be
00:01:31.660 like, no.
00:01:32.300 How are you guys going to keep my information safe?
00:01:34.360 How are you going to keep my business safe?
00:01:36.260 I've built, I've spent my whole life building this thing for you guys to piss away in one
00:01:40.300 bad phone call.
00:01:41.900 But they say yes.
00:01:42.980 They say yes.
00:01:43.620 And then oftentimes what ends up happening is the average lifespan for a CIA asset is
00:01:48.640 about five years.
00:01:49.540 We say that's their useful reporting life, not their physical life.
00:01:53.400 Because within five years, CIA fucks up somehow.
00:01:55.800 They leak their information.
00:01:57.940 They don't brief the right office.
00:01:59.800 And then an internal investigation takes suit and some FBI person barges through your office
00:02:04.880 door and arrests you on suspicion of working with Russians.
00:02:07.980 And then it's not until you get into an interrogation room where you're like, I'm only talking
00:02:11.100 to the Russians because CIA's paying me to talk to the Russians.
00:02:13.780 And then that whole fucking debacle blows up.
00:02:15.820 And it's a mess.
00:02:17.180 It's a mess because government compartmentalizes so heavily.
00:02:19.940 The second reason why people do it is because they believe CIA is going to help them somehow.
00:02:23.460 Help them close a deal.
00:02:24.560 Help them get intel.
00:02:25.380 Help them get something on their computer.
00:02:26.540 That's the last thing you would think about.
00:02:27.680 If you're going to do it.
00:02:28.440 They're never going to do it.
00:02:29.060 Okay.
00:02:29.640 So, but let's go with that.
00:02:31.640 Where am I going with this?
00:02:32.540 So, you think about stories like an Epstein.
00:02:36.240 Okay.
00:02:36.440 So, you know, when I say intel, of course, I think CIA, but you have Mossad, you have
00:02:43.280 MI6, you have, you talk highly of India, I think, with India's intelligence.
00:02:46.660 I've never heard about it.
00:02:47.360 So you're starting to really speak where you're bringing some attention to it.
00:02:50.940 But if, if a, if a person like an Epstein, okay, where you hear stories about this guy
00:02:58.540 on what things he's been involved with, you go back history at this point, people know
00:03:03.080 that him and Bill Barr went to a school together.
00:03:05.420 I don't know if you knew this or not.
00:03:06.500 They went to a school together many, many years ago as kids.
00:03:10.000 And then that, one of the people from that school is who later on came back and brought
00:03:14.160 Jeffrey Epstein to be a math teacher, even though he didn't have the degree for it.
00:03:17.900 And he kind of grows up to be who he is today.
00:03:19.620 But the story with how he made his money, how he got his connection, his tie to Robert Maxwell,
00:03:26.380 Robert Maxwell's tie back to Mossad, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was trained by her father, and
00:03:31.480 Robert Maxwell being a big media mogul person.
00:03:33.760 Does a person like Epstein leverage his intel relationship with Mossad to get things from
00:03:45.580 either Mossad or the individuals as a form of a threat and a leverage that's different
00:03:50.520 than a CIA coming to somebody in America saying, we'd like to be an asset to help us out getting
00:03:56.120 information?
00:03:56.620 How different is an Epstein versus what happens here?
00:04:00.540 In method, in methodology, it's not that different.
00:04:03.740 And it's not that different.
00:04:04.540 You're basically, you have an intelligence agency that knows there's a source of information
00:04:07.620 from an individual.
00:04:08.840 And then they just need to find what they can use to reciprocate that cooperation from the
00:04:14.360 targeted individual.
00:04:15.100 So the methodology is not that different.
00:04:16.760 I would, and I still do, openly say the most likely intelligence connection that Jeffrey
00:04:24.620 Epstein had was with Mossad.
00:04:26.260 Most likely.
00:04:27.060 If he was an intelligence asset, it was probably for Mossad, not for CIA.
00:04:31.040 He's too much of a high risk for CIA.
00:04:33.000 And what he would have wanted is something Mossad would have been able to supply him with,
00:04:38.980 where the CIA couldn't.
00:04:40.040 Whether that's sex trafficking or something else, Mossad is way more flexible in what they're
00:04:44.920 willing to bring to the table in terms of an intelligence operation, other than CIA.
00:04:48.700 So tell me more when you use the word flexible.
00:04:51.140 So Mossad assassinates, openly assassinates.
00:04:54.000 CIA does not openly assassinate.
00:04:55.980 Israel and Mossad openly advocate for regime change.
00:04:59.860 CIA does not do that.
00:05:00.980 And then the permissions, the authorities that kind of, for lack of a better word, handcuff CIA,
00:05:08.720 those authorities don't really exist for Mossad.
00:05:11.740 Mossad is essentially the modern day version of the 1960s era CIA.
00:05:16.420 Very experimental, very flexible, very little oversight, because they're surrounded by an
00:05:23.780 ocean of threats, whereas the United States is surrounded by a literal ocean, and Canada
00:05:28.640 and Mexico.
00:05:29.500 So we have different threat portfolios, profiles, and the difference in that threat profile is
00:05:36.400 what informs our willingness to take high risk actions.
00:05:39.740 So, it's interesting when you say, so are you saying back in the 60s, we were as reckless
00:05:46.560 and aggressive in getting intel as the current Mossad is?
00:05:50.700 And we were as reckless without being as well-trained, well-funded, or well-technologically equipped.
00:05:56.660 Give me an example of how reckless we were.
00:05:58.140 MX Ultra.
00:05:59.180 Okay.
00:05:59.600 Operation Midnight Climax.
00:06:00.960 I mean, we were actively drugging Americans and then putting them in brothels with American 1.00
00:06:07.420 prostitutes to test mind-control agents. 0.81
00:06:10.340 That's some reckless shit.
00:06:11.880 Trying to get Castro's beard to fall off his face, the whole bay of pigs.
00:06:15.980 I mean, that's the kind of shit that CIA still can't get off its back because it was so dumb,
00:06:22.420 reckless, and ill-informed.
00:06:23.480 Do you think that gives a country an edge if they're willing to be more reckless than you
00:06:31.180 in gathering intel and you're trying to be more proper than them?
00:06:34.340 Just imagine.
00:06:35.040 Take it out of the intel world and put it on the fucking school playground, right?
00:06:39.620 Which bully is likely to not get muscled around?
00:06:42.480 The one that will go crazy when you approach him or the one who's trying to play by the rules?
00:06:46.640 No question about it.
00:06:47.860 No question.
00:06:48.460 Yeah.
00:06:48.680 And that's exactly why it works.
00:06:50.500 Who knows this?
00:06:51.400 All of the five eyes, the five eyes being the five Western intelligence agencies that
00:06:57.360 cooperate the closest, Canada, America, UK, Australia, New Zealand, all of the five eyes
00:07:02.660 know Mossad is the most risk-tolerant and most aggressive of intelligence agencies.
00:07:12.280 And then we also know that because of that recklessness, there's only so much we can do
00:07:17.400 to reel them in.
00:07:18.280 They're so reckless, Pat, they collect on us.
00:07:22.100 Mossad actively tries to penetrate CIA, actively tries to penetrate MI6, ASIS.
00:07:25.860 I wouldn't be surprised with that.
00:07:26.920 ASIS, yeah.
00:07:28.280 Yeah.
00:07:28.500 When John was here, John Kiraku said every time they would come around to us, he said,
00:07:31.940 we never trusted Mossad because they would come in, they would give gifts.
00:07:35.700 And we're like, what are you doing giving us gifts?
00:07:36.980 We don't need gifts.
00:07:37.580 You're going to put some recording.
00:07:38.480 We'd find it.
00:07:38.960 We're like, what are you doing?
00:07:39.620 I can tell you.
00:07:40.140 You want to hear my conversation.
00:07:41.680 What experiences did you have with the Mossad yourself?
00:07:44.180 So I was lucky to only have a few experiences because the types of operations I worked on
00:07:50.040 were more sensitive than they were willing to expose to Mossad.
00:07:52.400 In my senior years, in my years as a middle manager, if you will, that's when I had the
00:07:57.620 most overlap with joint operations with Mossad.
00:07:59.860 Always super professional, always very smart, always quiet in the room, always impeccably
00:08:06.060 dressed and always shockingly good looking, especially if they were cooperating in an
00:08:11.120 operation with the U.S. because they know our M.O.
00:08:13.600 They know that a beautiful man or a beautiful woman is going to distract us from better judgment.
00:08:20.160 And that's one of the things that we're briefed on before we operate with Mossad.
00:08:23.140 We're like, hey, just expect a bombshell to walk in and expect that they put that bombshell
00:08:28.880 there for a reason.
00:08:30.580 It's basic principles.
00:08:31.960 Basic principles.
00:08:32.900 And that's how they work.
00:08:33.680 That's why they're so good, because they can literally leverage what we call primal instincts.
00:08:39.600 Primal instincts in human beings, they surpass your religious beliefs, they surpass your
00:08:44.560 education level, your age, these primal incentives that they know how to kind of set the dominoes
00:08:50.940 up in place to maximize your cooperation, unless you come in defensive.
00:08:55.100 So let's go back to it.
00:08:56.280 So let's talk about the recklessness you're saying of Mossad, that they're willing to go
00:08:59.920 to levels that, you know, U.S. is not willing to go.
00:09:02.320 We used to back in the 60s, no longer.
00:09:04.000 What event prevented us from being as reckless?
00:09:06.560 Is it because somebody came in and they're like, well, moving forward, the CIA is going
00:09:09.900 to be a very responsible intel agency and we're going to tell everything to America.
00:09:14.660 Or no, after the 60s, you know, you got Martin Luther King, you got John F. Kennedy, you got
00:09:20.260 Bobby Kennedy, you got all this stuff that happened.
00:09:22.620 The reputation dropped.
00:09:23.760 Let's find a way to fix this.
00:09:25.180 What was the reasoning why we went more safer than being reckless?
00:09:28.360 September 11th, 2001.
00:09:29.720 So not even 60s.
00:09:31.160 So you're coming straight to 01.
00:09:32.640 01.
00:09:33.220 When we, when CIA and FBI failed to collaborate effectively to prevent 9-11, when that happened,
00:09:40.000 the Congress stepped in and created heavy oversight for both intelligence agencies.
00:09:45.980 The 9-11 commission that was completed in 2003 basically outlined how the intelligence
00:09:51.420 agencies were forced to cooperate, forced to grow, how their budget and their operations
00:09:57.820 were going to be strictly pursued and overseen by a group in the Congress and how everything
00:10:04.280 would have to get briefed up through the executive branch.
00:10:06.680 That transformed CIA.
00:10:09.620 So they, so they finally had oversight.
00:10:12.540 So prior to that, what was oversight?
00:10:14.640 The president had, the president controls CIA.
00:10:18.120 That's always, it's always been the case.
00:10:19.560 That's the executive branch.
00:10:20.640 But what else, did they have another dotted line to somebody else after 01?
00:10:23.780 They had a slight, yeah, after 01, they had dotted lines to multiple people.
00:10:27.740 So they were still under the executive branch, but they had a hard line to the DNI.
00:10:32.440 And the DNI had a hard line to the CIA, to the executive, the president.
00:10:35.660 So now you have one layer of management in between the two.
00:10:38.860 But then you also have this dotted line to the Congress who controls the purse strings.
00:10:42.560 So prior to that, CIA was controlled exclusively by a black budget.
00:10:45.860 They spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it.
00:10:47.860 Well, now their budget's tied to Congress, black or not. 0.99
00:10:50.520 Do you like that?
00:10:52.280 Do you, I mean, do you think there needs to be a department that nobody knows about,
00:11:02.840 especially when we're dealing with the types of actors in the world today,
00:11:05.680 that if they're going to have no rules and they're going to be reckless,
00:11:09.380 we're going to play by the rules.
00:11:10.620 We're going to get our asses handed to us.
00:11:11.800 And that's my concern, man.
00:11:13.020 I look at this situation and it's kind of fucked both ways.
00:11:18.540 If you take away oversight to CIA, you run the risk of a politicized, weaponized CIA doing
00:11:25.580 whatever the hell it wants to do.
00:11:26.540 And that goes for anybody else.
00:11:27.780 That goes for IRS for all we care, right?
00:11:29.660 But if you give increasing permissions and oversight to CIA to be more activist, more risk tolerance,
00:11:38.680 then you kind of invite more pain, more public damage, more loss of reputation in the international space.
00:11:48.100 So it's a hard place to be right now, but you're asking the right questions.
00:11:51.420 We, the American people, should be asking these questions.
00:11:53.840 Right now, we're outsourcing these questions to whoever sits in Congress.
00:11:56.980 Yeah, that's not, I don't trust that.
00:12:00.080 So, so the recklessness, you said after 60s, so are you saying were we still reckless in the 90s?
00:12:08.120 We were still without supervision in the 90s, which is a big part of why you started to see, you know,
00:12:13.040 like the Hutus and Tutsis took over.
00:12:14.880 So, so, so regard, so the 9-11 event that took place, whether we were more reckless or not,
00:12:21.760 that couldn't have been prevented is what you're saying.
00:12:23.600 100% could have been prevented.
00:12:25.240 If what?
00:12:25.720 If there would have been, this is the argument in the 9-11 Commission,
00:12:29.200 if CIA and FBI would have been forced to work together, 9-11 would have been avoided.
00:12:34.860 And they say that because when, in retrospect, they collected all of the intelligence in both agencies
00:12:40.960 and looked at it from 2001 to 2003, they saw that the fulsome profile of both intelligence collection efforts
00:12:48.080 would have prevented the time, the place, and the personas involved.
00:12:51.860 But because FBI was sending messages to CIA, CIA was ignoring them, CIA was sending messages to FBI,
00:12:58.060 FBI was ignoring them.
00:12:59.220 They're using two different systems.
00:13:01.000 They're speaking in different languages.
00:13:02.620 They have different encryptions for the same sources.
00:13:04.760 All of this chaos resulted in the most important stuff just sitting in the printer.
00:13:11.100 Did we communicate better in the 50s and 60s, CIA and FBI, versus in the 90s?
00:13:14.920 No, but they had a greater chasm between responsibilities.
00:13:20.480 So inside United States, FBI, outside United States, CIA.
00:13:25.020 Law enforcement, FBI, foreign intelligence, CIA.
00:13:29.460 Sabotage, CIA.
00:13:31.280 Drug research, drug investigation, CIA.
00:13:34.260 It started to get kind of conflagrated, I think the word is, confused, in the 90s and into the early 2000s.
00:13:43.260 Yeah, so this, I don't know.
00:13:46.440 So, okay, the level of recklessness of Israel till today, who holds them accountable? 0.86
00:13:54.440 What is their level of recklessness they can go to where a commission comes in and say,
00:13:58.360 tribunal, hey, hey, listen, time out.
00:14:01.360 What are we doing here?
00:14:02.980 Is there anybody that holds all the intel agencies worldwide accountable?
00:14:06.600 Or there's, really?
00:14:07.780 That was what they hoped would come about from the UN.
00:14:12.560 That there would be some kind of global organization that we would all voluntarily submit ourselves to.
00:14:19.700 And then we would follow that rule.
00:14:21.660 It was actually Clinton who refused to let the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the UN's court, the criminal court.
00:14:30.400 So after he set that precedent, Israel followed, China followed, Russia followed.
00:14:36.300 And that's why we find ourselves where we are now, where basically anything goes if you're a strong enough, brave enough leader.
00:14:42.640 Yeah, I mean, for me, I wouldn't want to be under UN because I don't even trust UN.
00:14:46.220 UN's going to be having favorites.
00:14:47.360 So no matter what it is, bias is there no matter who you are.
00:14:51.020 To believe that a person is going to be 100%.
00:14:52.720 Walter Cronkite was the most unbiased.
00:14:55.200 Stop it.
00:14:55.740 He was a liberal.
00:14:56.460 He still had his own bias, right?
00:14:58.200 All of us have it.
00:14:59.220 So the sooner I know what your biases are and what mine are, the sooner I'm like, yeah, I totally get it.
00:15:04.080 We were talking about, you know, three years ago about you coming here, doing something.
00:15:07.320 You remember that conversation we had?
00:15:08.700 You know, my biggest thing was you had a timeline.
00:15:11.100 And, okay, we do the show.
00:15:12.220 We grow it.
00:15:12.720 It gets millions of subscribers.
00:15:13.840 And then somebody has to come after you, ain't nobody going to be able to want to hear anybody else but you.
00:15:18.280 I'm like, no, that's not, I'm not, you know, you go do your thing.
00:15:20.580 We had that conversation and I've recommended you to God knows how many people because I think you're phenomenal at what you do.
00:15:25.800 But everybody has a bias, spouse, husband, wife, kids.
00:15:29.640 Everybody has some of it.
00:15:31.220 And then you have the character and the trust.
00:15:32.880 But going back to this, I'm kind of glad we're not under the UN jurisdiction.
00:15:36.140 And that's what kills us, right?
00:15:37.780 Would you want to do that?
00:15:39.020 No, no, no.
00:15:39.800 Personally, personally, it makes complete sense.
00:15:42.480 But what happens is when you look at what's happening in the headlines and then you put mass opinion on top of what's happening, that mass opinion sometimes drones out the other more rational thought process, right?
00:15:54.960 So you've got all these people who are like, oh, America committed war crimes invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
00:16:01.020 According to war crime legal definition, yeah, we did.
00:16:07.200 All war is illegal according to the war definition.
00:16:09.200 That doesn't stop wars from happening.
00:16:10.420 So who are you going to be, the one that gets invaded or the one that does the invading?
00:16:14.880 I mean, if you kind of look at it as a binary personal decision, it makes total sense.
00:16:18.380 But our enemies and our own internal politics have made it so that people start to think that somehow a more cooperative world is better for us.
00:16:31.840 Because when that's that is a problem that only the richest, wealthiest, healthiest people get to have, because when you're not the richest, the wealthiest and the healthiest, you don't want to be.
00:16:40.560 Yeah, you don't want to.
00:16:41.360 They want it, right?
00:16:43.000 Exactly.
00:16:43.280 They want it because the more order, you know, the less chance somebody is going to take them out, right?
00:16:47.200 You want that order to be in place.
00:16:49.060 But sometimes you need chaos to be able to move up as well, right?
00:16:52.000 If you don't have the bit of the chaotic situation, how do I come up as a small market?
00:16:56.460 Nowadays, more than ever, the brand you wear reflects and represents who you are.
00:17:01.100 So for us, if you wear a Future Looks Bright hat or a Valuetainment gear, you're telling the world, I'm optimistic.
00:17:09.060 I'm excited about what's going to be happening.
00:17:10.660 But you're a free thinker.
00:17:11.580 You question things.
00:17:12.320 You like debate.
00:17:12.860 And by the way, last year, 120,000 people got a piece of Future Looks Bright gear with Valuetainment.
00:17:20.780 We have so many new things.
00:17:22.500 The cufflinks are here.
00:17:24.000 New Future Looks Bright.
00:17:25.100 This is my favorite, the green one.
00:17:26.860 Just yesterday, somebody placed an order for a hundred of these.
00:17:31.000 If you watch the PBD podcast, you got a bunch to choose from.
00:17:34.320 White ones, black ones. 0.75
00:17:35.680 If you smoke cigars and you come to our cigar lounge, we have this high quality, lighter cutter and a Holder Ford of cigars.
00:17:44.780 We got sweaters with the Valuetainment logo on it.
00:17:47.460 We got mugs.
00:17:48.300 We got a bunch of different things.
00:17:50.020 But if you believe the Future Looks Bright, if you follow our content and what we represent with Valuetainment, with PBD podcast, go to vtmerch.com.
00:17:59.960 And by the way, if you order right now, there's going to be a special VT gift insight just for you.
00:18:04.680 So again, go to vtmerch.com, place your order, tell the world that you believe the Future Looks Bright.
00:18:10.400 If you enjoyed this video, you want to watch more videos like this, click here.
00:18:13.060 And if you want to watch the entire podcast, click here.