MTracey podcast

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netI’ve spent the last 24 hours consuming an unhealthy amount of Epstein Files. Tis the season to be Jeffrey.

As everyone ravenously gobbles up all the new “Epstein Files,” released with redactions galore by the Department of Justice (hey, I tried to warn you!) please enjoy this discussion I recorded yesterday with Ian Maxwell, a man who I’m sure has many noteworthy traits in his own right, but for our purposes is most relevant because he happens to be the brother of Ghislaine Maxwell — perhaps the most high-profile inmate in the federal prison system. I won’t shy away from acknowledging that I’m of the belief that Maxwell was wrongly convicted, that her 2021 trial was a complete farce, and that she’s essentially been scapegoated for the mythological sins of Jeffrey Epstein. Because someone had to pay for his world-historic wrongdoing, even if the contours of this perceived wrongdoing are seldom well-defined. Along the way, all manner of civil liberties were aggressively curtailed to put Ghislaine in the can — from suspending the right to confront one’s accusers, previously guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, to the “cruel and unusual punishment” of being tormented with beaming strobe-lights every 15 minutes, so she could not even sleep in pretrial detention. Exculpating evidence was withheld from her defense counsel; profit-seeking civil lawyers were effectively deputized as surrogate prosecutors. “Victims” were trotted out to contrive the most outlandish tales about events that took place as many as 27 years before; none had ever named Maxwell as a “sex-trafficking” villain until post-2019, when the settlement floodgates opened, and they could maximize their payouts by ensuring their newly-recalled memories aligned squarely with the government’s crusade to nail someone, anyone, for the broader Epstein fiasco. As an FBI official effused upon Maxwell’s arrest in July 2020, it took a great deal of “creativity” for enterprising law enforcement professionals to figure out a way to send Maxwell to the slammer. Because the factual predicate was not exactly straightforward. But they got it done, by god, thanks in no small part to the cultural and political mania that prevailed at the time, which even swept right through the jury box. One juror spoke up at a critical moment during deliberations, imploring his fellow jurors to set aside their misgivings about the witnesses’ credibility, because he too — the juror, that is — was himself a child sex abuse survivor, and this somehow endowed him with the knowledge that the government-designated victims must be telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. One problem, though: this sermonizing foreman had also falsified his juror questionnaire, checking “no” under the question: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?” Which was supposed to have been grounds for him to be disqualified from the resultant jury pool, given the likelihood that he’d fail to remain impartial in evaluating the alleged child sex crimes at issue in the trial. But the judge paid no mind; post-verdict appeals made by Maxwell’s counsel were soundly rebuffed. So now she’s been sitting in prison for over five years, and has also incongruously become a partisan “hot potato,” with Democrats darkly intimating that she must’ve been moved to a slightly-less-onerous lockup facility because she’s an accessory to some “coverup” engineered by Trump, even though no one ever specifies what exactly is being covered up. So there you have it: I spoke to her brother yesterday. And so concludes my stream-of-consciousness introduction to that conversation. One big, unwieldy paragraph that I’m not even going to bother trimming down for aesthetic reasons. Deal with it! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

I went to Epstein Press Conference, Part Two today in front of the US Capitol. Some initial thoughts. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netI was called forth from my slumbers (and detour into the NYC mayoral race) to comment on the latest Trump/Epstein silliness.

You’ll have to scroll around in the video a bit to see the interviews (skip Richard’s solo intro). Live-streamed this afternoon from Middle Village, Queens. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This Wednesday, October 8, I intrepidly voyaged to New Brunswick, NJ for the final New Jersey gubernatorial debate of the 2025 election cycle. Now, you may be asking yourself: Why should I care about the New Jersey gubernatorial race? Even if you live in New Jersey, you may find yourself asking this question. And I’m not claiming you should care deeply or passionately. But there are some interesting dynamics perhaps worth keeping an eye on.First is that if Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, the Democrat, wins, it’s likely she’ll eventually be courted to run for president. There has only ever been one female governor of New Jersey, and it was a Republican (Christine Todd Whitman). So we’ll probably hear a lot about Mikie’s “history-making” triumph as the first female Democratic governor of the state. Her political career was assiduously cultivated by Party chieftains, beginning when she won her election to the House in 2018, as one of the estimable “Dem National Security Women” who swept to power that year, along with Elissa Slotkin (CIA) who is now Senator from Michigan, and Abigail Spanberger (CIA) who now appears to be a shoo-in for the next Governor of Virginia. (NJ’s off-year race, at least per conventional wisdom, seems more competitive than the VA race.) Mikie wasn’t CIA, but she’s a former Naval Aviator and Federal Prosecutor — so close enough. And she’s always running around declaring that her vaunted public service is “rooted in the defense of our country on the front lines of national security.”So, basically, Mikie Sherrill is poised to become a major national figure. And as such, it’s worth interrogating her ideological profile and inclinations. Some of those inclinations include: constantly calling contested political claims “misinformation,” promoting censorship-friendly “Online Safety” initiatives, being extremely over-rehearsed and boring, etc. At the post-debate press conference, I was able to ask Mikie about her “misinformation” verbal tick, as you can see in the video above.Joining me for this New Jerseyean adventure was Meagan O’Rourke, whose YouTube channel you should also take a look at. She’s mainly been covering the NYC mayoral race, and asked Mikie whether she reciprocates the apparently unsolicited endorsement that Zohran Mamdani (somewhat strangely) gave Mikie in August. Zohran is diligently trying to “moderate,” while Mikie is already seen as a thoroughly “moderate Dem,” and is therefore trying to fend off any accusations that she may be emboldening the “radical socialist” element of the party. These divergent incentives have made for a confounding situation where Mikie simply refuses to weigh in on the NYC mayoral election, even as there are a raft of issues on which the NJ governor and the NYC mayor would manifestly have to work together. As you’ll see, she unconvincingly evades Meagan’s question.I also mixed things up a bit by asking Jack Ciattarelli, the Republican, about the Trump Administration seemingly marching toward imposing regime change in Venezuela. While admittedly not the most obvious New Jersey-focused issue, NJ does have one of the largest populations of Venezuelan-born residents — therefore it’s conceivable that if the Venezuelan government gets further crippled and/or overthrown, there could be a surge in migratory inflows to the state. Jack, probably truthfully, said he didn’t know enough about the issue to comment. At the same time, he did say he gave the Second Trump Administration an “A” rating, so he should perhaps consider brushing up a bit on what it’s doing abroad.Finally, I managed to raise my absolute favorite subject in the world — Jeffrey Epstein. But it was not my doing that Epstein bizarrely became an issue in the New Jersey gubernatorial race! Mikie Sherrill, still a sitting member of Congress, joined with every other Democrat and a handful of Republicans to sign the Khanna/Massie discharge petition, purportedly to compel release of the “Epstein Files.” And she put out a statement trying to claim that Jack Ciatterelli is too afraid of “his boss,” Trump, to join her heroic efforts to demand Epstein-related transparency. When I put this to Jack, he said it was another one of Mikie’s lies, and he’s all in favor of releasing the files. I doubt he even knows what “releasing the files” would mean — much less that the Khanna/Massie legislation would not actually bring about the full release of such files — but there you have it. The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein somehow haunts the 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial election.Meagan and I chatted about all this and more in the above video — press conference clips included — so give it a good little watch, if you want. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netI watched the Charlie Kirk memorial extravaganza today. I also went to a Charlie Kirk church service last night in suburban New York. So here’s me thinking aloud about all of it.

People are predictably enraged that I had the audacity to write this article yesterday, questioning whether we’re all obliged to sit passively by while Charlie Kirk gets inducted into the pantheon of slain American political saints. But I’m just following Glenn Greenwald’s dictum:We are all taught that it is impolite to speak ill of the dead, particularly in the immediate aftermath of someone’s death. For a private person, in a private setting, that makes perfect sense. Most human beings are complex and shaped by conflicting drives, defined by both good and bad acts. That’s more or less what it means to be human. And — when it comes to private individuals — it’s entirely appropriate to emphasize the positives of someone’s life and avoid criticisms upon their death: it comforts their grieving loved ones and honors their memory. In that context, there’s just no reason, no benefit, to highlight their flaws.But that is completely inapplicable to the death of a public person, especially one who is political. When someone dies who is a public figure by virtue of their political acts — like Ronald Reagan — discussions of them upon death will be inherently politicized. How they are remembered is not strictly a matter of the sensitivities of their loved ones, but has substantial impact on the culture which discusses their lives. To allow significant political figures to be heralded with purely one-sided requiems — enforced by misguided (even if well-intentioned) notions of private etiquette that bar discussions of their bad acts — is not a matter of politeness; it’s deceitful and propagandistic. To exploit the sentiments of sympathy produced by death to enshrine a political figure as Great and Noble is to sanction, or at best minimize, their sins. Misapplying private death etiquette to public figures creates false history and glorifies the ignoble.The above 100% applies to Charlie Kirk, whom none of the people reading this right now would be talking about if not for his public political activities. So yes — I’m going to keep challenging the rapidly-congealing, and groundless, mythology. For instance, today Utah Governor Spencer Cox, who clearly wants to run for president, cited what he made out to be a touching and wise quote from Charlie Kirk, about how we all needed to get off the internet, read the Bible, and re-connect with our friends and family. Cox forgot to mention the context, which was that Charlie was urging his followers to disengage and uncritically “trust” the government during the US-Israeli war on Iran in June 2025. That was the context in which Charlie Kirk was advising that everybody log off and stop complaining about what Trump was doing — that is, mobilizing for war in the Middle East.So yes — I’m going to keep countering this nonsense.By the way, I haven’t forgotten about the plagiarism of Jessica Reed Kraus. She posted a very strange and incoherent “apology” on Wednesday, which I will soon make a point to address. The whole Charlie Kirk thing has thrown me off a bit from what I’d been planning to cover. As the news broke, I was on my way to the Comedy Cellar for this podcast recording. Maybe not the most opportune moment for some laughs, but we made the best of it. I also recorded this Reason podcast last week, and it finally just came out. I think it’s probably the best podcast I’ve done so far on Epstein. I’m headed out to do yet another podcast this afternoon. Will no one rid us of these godforsaken podcasts!!!!! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

One of the people responsible for catalyzing me to look into Darryl Cooper in the first place was Thaddeus Russell, who insisted on a previous stream that I must “respectfully” engage with his friend Darryl’s work, given how prominent a player he’s been for so many years in the “Epstein Space.” So I took up the challenge… and the results weren’t pretty.This is a long stream, recorded today, August 28. It was supposed to be primarily about Cooper, or so I thought, but at Thad’s request I also wound up giving a comprehensive chronology of the Epstein saga, interweaving commentary on Cooper throughout, since that’s at top of mind for me right now. I also took some questions solo at the end.I’ll have a followup article on Cooper soon, but it will be paywalled, so consider upgrading your subscription to “paid,” if you’d like to read it.You can also subscribe to me on YouTube, because unfortunately Substack makes it annoying to live-stream to Substack over desktop. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This past Saturday I did what every conscientious citizen should’ve been doing with their placid summer weekend: asking random people on the Jersey Shore about Jeffrey Epstein.The journey began improbably, when it turned out the very first guy we encountered had literally been on a boat tour of Epstein’s island. And it ended with a big barrel of laughs, as another guy, Bob, proved to be one of the most naturally funny people I have ever come across. He had me seriously cracking up. Along the way, other interviewees also provided some interesting commentaries. Just another day at the boardwalk in Seaside Heights, NJ.Why do I do this sort of thing? Not merely in search of cheap viral moments with a news peg, although I do personally think Bob deserves to go viral and then perhaps take over “The Late Show” on CBS. I would also argue there is genuine journalistic value in making a point to semi-regularly ask “normal people” what they think about major news events. Not only to gauge their opinion, but to sense how they’re processing information, and from what sources. One young woman told us she’d only heard about the Epstein controversy from a single video on TikTok, and therefore didn’t have a whole lot to add. Others admitted with admirable candor that they hadn’t formed any strong views one way or another, because while they might be vaguely aware of the controversy, they had not consumed enough information to comment intelligently.And then there were others who volunteered their preexisting knowledge of “Pizzagate.”I know there’s a whole genre of “content creation” where man-on-the-street interviews are used for lame stunts or ridiculous gossip. However, on principle, I think it can be a worthwhile endeavor. Here’s another such video I did recently, asking Staten Island residents on the Fourth of July about Trump bombing Iran. The answers were diametrically opposite to what we’d been told were the prevailing views within the “MAGA Base” — by which pundits generally mean a handful of outlier social media personalities and podcasters who are not meaningfully representative of anything in particular, except the curious incentives of contemporary media.I’m still thinking through to what extent the popular storyline of Epstein-infuriated MAGAs being in rebellion against Trump actually has any long-term political ramifications, or if that narrative is just another invention of lazy media pontificators (both traditional and “alternative”) who love nothing more than to report on alleged “rifts” bedeviling MAGA. The jury’s still out, but I lean toward the supposed MAGA dissension being greatly exaggerated — a function of chronic over-reliance on algorithmically-curated social media feeds to extrapolate larger political trends. Are some Trump supporters angry and disenchanted — particularly those with outsized visibility online? Sure. Are they meaningfully representative of the wider GOP electorate? I have my doubts. Although, I will acknowledge that Epstein resonates differently than other issues, like Iran or even immigration, because it impinges on what’s come to be a core tenet of online Right-Wing dogma: that society is perpetually governed by the omnipresence of Satanic child sex-trafficking rings, and their sadistic coverup. Trump was supposed to vanquish the Deep State and expose the pedophiles, but now he appears to be colluding with them, and may even be implicated himself. And it’s not as if he just politely informed the public that sorry, there is no master Epstein “file” after all — he’s repeatedly called the whole thing a “hoax,” and launched bizarre screeds against his own supporters. So, I could see this having some deeper long-term political impact that’s a bit difficult to quantify right now, although I still lean toward it having not nearly as much impact as many have over-eagerly suggested in the past several weeks.Either way, it’s still interesting and amusing to ask normal people IRL about Epstein.Here’s the new video on YouTube, if you prefer.Videography and editing credit to Meagan O’Rourke. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netBy popular demand, I spent the weekend immersed in yet another Epstein deep-dive. I report my preliminary findings.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netWe’re giving the people what they want. And the people want Epstein.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netWhether we like it or not, it’s the Summer of Epstein. Trump keeps denouncing his own supporters for fixating on the issue — today even going so far as to disown what he now calls the “stupid” MAGA Influencers who refuse to shut up about it. I keep getting requests to write and talk about Epstein mania, throwing a monkey wrench into my plans to cover ot…

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netIt was time for yet another dive into the Epstein humiliation tonight, this time with Richard Hanania. Agree with him or not, Richard tends to be a fairly well-informed person, so it was interesting to discover how little he fundamentally knew about the Epstein saga, and how easy it was to dispel various myths he’d just kind of ambiently absorbed. We al…

Here’s my discussion with Lily Lynch, whom I met at the NATO Summit last week and considers herself a fellow journalistic “weirdo,” making it opportune to swap some observations. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.mtracey.netHere’s a recording of my weekly discussion with Richard Hanania.

Thank you Richard Hanania, Michael A Alexander, Crash Hall, Nick Huth, Chuck Nasmith, and many others for tuning into my live video with Richard Hanania! Join me for my next live video in the app. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mtracey.net/subscribe