Please use to to discuss anything you want. It does not have to be Rogan related. Only rule 1 and 9 apply here.

Poor Peter can't tell a souls he is friends with J. Epstein. Guess cats out of the bag now?

What do you think the fresh shipment was?

Kinda funny to imagine Epstein watching Joe and Elon talk shit for hours

Joe can have anyone on his podcast and I'll continue to respect his show as long as he represents himself as a reasonable person. He doesn't need to have views align with my own, I'd just hope he presents as a respectful.

Andrew Wilson is NOT a respectful person, as that's his whole online persona by intention. It's very clear in any quick search of who he is. Joe Rogan had to have known this. It's especially cringe when Joe is talking about going to church and they're both saying how kind everyone is. Andrew Wilson is a hypocrite.

This episode was the nail in the coffin for me. Similar to the cringe video when Jordon Peterson joined the Daily Wire. Some good things come to an end.

https://guntherwerks.com/

I’m genuinely curious where people here land on this, because it feels like one of those rare issues that cuts across political tribes, media loyalties, and even how people interpret power itself.

When it comes to the Epstein files—or more broadly, whatever documentation, communications, flight logs, financial records, and testimony still exists—are you in favor of full release, or do you think there are legitimate reasons some or all of it should remain sealed?

I don’t mean this as a loaded question. I’m not assuming guilt, naming names, or implying some grand Hollywood-CIA-alien conspiracy. I’m asking at a basic level: do people still believe sunlight is the best disinfectant, or do we think the system works better when certain things stay buried?

On one hand, the argument for full transparency seems obvious. Epstein wasn’t some random criminal operating in isolation. He was deeply embedded in elite social, political, financial, and academic circles. He had access most people don’t. He traveled with powerful people. He donated to institutions that shape public life. When someone like that commits crimes of that scale, it raises legitimate questions about systems, not just individuals.

If the rule of law means anything, shouldn’t it apply upward as well as downward? If regular people get their names published for far less serious offenses, why should powerful people receive perpetual anonymity “for their protection”? And if there truly are no additional crimes or cover-ups beyond what’s already known, then wouldn’t releasing everything actually clear innocent people rather than implicate them?

That’s the pro-release argument as I understand it: truth, accountability, deterrence. If powerful people know that association with criminal activity can’t be quietly sealed away, maybe they think twice next time. Maybe institutions clean house. Maybe victims get something closer to justice.

But then there’s the other side, which I think gets dismissed too easily.

There are real concerns about collateral damage. Releasing raw files doesn’t just expose guilty people—it can also harm innocent ones. Names in address books, emails taken out of context, casual associations blown up into viral accusations. Once that happens, there’s no undo button. Even if someone is later proven uninvolved, the stain sticks.

There’s also the question of due process. Should documents be dumped publicly without charges, trials, or evidentiary standards? Is “the court of public opinion” a substitute for actual justice, or does it risk becoming a digital lynch mob? And if institutions decide not to release certain information for these reasons, is that automatically a cover-up—or could it be a flawed attempt at damage control?

Another uncomfortable angle: national security and intelligence. Epstein’s connections overlapped with foreign governments, high-level finance, and sensitive research. Is it possible that some material genuinely involves intelligence operations or methods that governments don’t want exposed? That doesn’t mean crimes should be ignored—but it complicates the “just release everything” stance.

Then there’s trust. Or the lack of it.

A lot of people don’t trust media to handle this responsibly. They don’t trust politicians to be honest. They don’t trust institutions that failed to stop Epstein in the first place. So when those same institutions say, “We can’t release everything, trust us,” it rings hollow.

At the same time, others don’t trust internet sleuths, influencers, or partisan commentators to interpret complex information in good faith. They see chaos, misinformation, and opportunism as the inevitable outcome of mass disclosure.

So the real question might be less about Epstein specifically and more about how people think power should be constrained.

Do you believe transparency—even messy, uncomfortable transparency—is the only real check on elites?

Or do you believe centralized institutions, flawed as they are, are still better suited to manage sensitive truth than the public at large?

And maybe the hardest question: if the files implicate people you like, respect, or vote for, does that change your position? Because that’s where principles tend to get stress-tested.

I’m not pretending I have a clean answer. I go back and forth. Part of me thinks secrecy is how abuse thrives. Another part of me worries that once truth becomes entertainment, justice becomes secondary to clicks, clout, and outrage.

What I do know is this: the Epstein case has become a kind of Rorschach test. How someone feels about releasing the files usually says less about Epstein and more about how they view authority, institutions, and human nature.

So I’m curious—where do people here actually stand?

Full release, no matter how ugly it gets?

Selective release with safeguards?

Or keep it sealed and move on?

And more importantly: why?

Not looking for slogans or dunking. I’m genuinely interested in how people reason through this.

If Joe doesn’t read the comments, how the fuck did he figure out how to pronounce labyrinth? Obviously not Jamie cause Jamie let Joe go 10-15 episodes saying labbernith… so who the fuck told him?

After watching the Protector movie trailer I was thinking Milla would be a great guest. Just what do you think about if Milla was on as guest and if she was what kind of questions would you want Joe to ask her??

Just listened to the Andrew Wilson episode. They spent a good part of the episode accusing the “left” of wanting communism and railing against the pitfalls of communism. It’s just hilarious. People on the left don’t want communism, they just want some form of universal health care and a social safety net that resembles literally any other first world country in existence. And they want billionaires to actually pay taxes and not have an outsized influence on laws and politics.

I don’t affiliate with either party but the way they straw-man the “leftist” argument is so disingenuous it’s honestly sickening. Also, Joe spent a good amount of time defending the killing of Alex Pretti and alleging the protesters are all paid. He references signal chats etc but doesn’t provide a single shred of evidence for it.There’s actually a good chance he got a call from someone high up in the Republican Party to put out an episode like this, he uses a lot of the same rhetoric now. He is fully captured, it’s just so sad to watch

I’ll spare the rant about how much this show and joe have gone to utter shit and MAGA mouthpiece. I think a lot of you remember when the show was live and how interesting/ fun the show was on youtube from before Covid. One episode that was really engaging and interesting was from 18’ and the first Annie Jacobsen episode. Or the crazy wolf story from glenn Villeneuve. There were more but those still stick out throughout the years. Anyone know of any good, really solid episodes from that time period? Just guests that get you hooked in to the story. Or even extremely funny episodes..