Prosecutor drops BOMB on Bondi amid Epstein update

You're watching the legal breakdown. Glenn, we have a major update as it relates to Pam Bondi coming to testify per a subpoena that was issued. I'm going to throw to a clip of Robert Garcia, the ranking member of the house oversight committee in the aftermath of a briefing that she just gave to members of Congress. I just want to make some comments. We just

walked out of what has been quite frankly, a complete disrespect of the process of one of our members and and quite frankly the American public should be outraged at what is happening right now. I want to just start by saying that we opened up what was supposed to be a briefing by asking the Attorney General, which I did multiple times, if she would commit to follow the subpoena that is in place that compels her to answer questions that's under oath, transcribed, and then made available to the American people, and she refused

on multiple occasions to commit to following the subpoena that Chairman Cohn were actually just put out.

So clearly Congressman Garcia is pretty irate there, and the issue at hand here is that there was a subpoena that Chairman Comer actually just put out. So clearly Congressman Garcia is pretty irate there. And the issue at hand here is that there was a subpoena that was issued for Pam Bondi to go and testify before the House Oversight Committee. Pam Bondi also voluntarily offered up a briefing to members of Congress. And clearly what she's trying to do is make it so that she can satisfy her obligations by just doing this voluntary briefing.

This way she has decided she doesn't have to actually go testify under oath in front of the House Oversight Committee. And so that's why Robert Garcia was asking her right off the bat, will you commit to following the subpoena that was issued to you? By the way, it was issued by James Comer, who's a Republican. So my first question for you, Glenn, is what happens when you have a subpoena that is ignored,

but it's ignored by the person who would normally be in charge of upholding law and enforcing that subpoena?

You know, Brian, this is theater of the absurd and theater of the lawless. I mean, in theory, Pam Bondi is the nation's top law enforcement officer. She is sworn to enforce the laws of the United States. A subpoena from Congress is a lawful directive that she must comply with.

Look, we've seen other Trump administration officials refuse to comply with lawfully issued congressional subpoenas. And you know who comes to mind? Guys like Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro. What happened to them when they defied lawfully issued congressional subpoenas?

They were indicted, they were tried, they were convicted, they were sentenced, and they were imprisoned, both of them, for defying congressional subpoenas. And Pam Bondi, the nation's top law enforcement officer, is actually saying she can't commit to complying with a congressional subpoena.

So Brian, let's talk about what she's trying to do, but even more importantly, let's talk about why she might be trying to do it. Because I think I have a pretty good idea. So first of all there are times when Congress or frankly even when prosecutors will issue subpoenas, Congress's to appear for testimony before some committee or another, prosecutors to have witnesses appear

before the grand jury and on I, I would say, rare occasion, an attorney for that person who's received the opinion might come forward and say, can we negotiate a voluntary interview? And if we do, and we answer all of your questions truthfully and to your satisfaction, would you be willing to withdraw the subpoena for testimony? And without going into the the rare circumstance when a prosecutor or when Congress might be willing to do that, it is something that is possible. So it looks like based on

what we are learning that maybe Pam Bondi is trying to sort of wiggle her way out of having to be put under oath and testify before a congressional committee either behind closed doors or publicly. Why? Might she be hell-bent on not being put in that position again? Because remember, we saw her testify just a matter of weeks ago when she was obstinate,

she was combative, she was disrespectful, she wouldn't answer questions but instead she had pre-written notes that involved attacking each one of the Democrat questioners that she didn't like. It was an ugly performance. She wouldn't even turn and face the survivors of Epstein's crimes, wouldn't even acknowledge their pain and

their victimization. It was a horrific performance but but let me just zoom in on one thing she said because in her sworn testimony to Congress she said there is no evidence in the Epstein files that Donald Trump committed a crime. Everybody knows that and the reality is what did we see in the most recent Epstein files release we saw that there is direct evidence not circumstantial evidence direct evidence not circumstantial evidence direct

evidence out of the mouth of a victim herself who is reported to have been 13 to 15 years old at the time of the alleged crime. Somebody the FBI interviewed four times, somebody whose information the FBI put in a briefing, this was obviously by all accounts somebody that the FBI deemed to be a credible witness slash victim. So what does that mean? Pam Bondi inarguably lied to

Congress when she said there was no evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime. So here is the position she now finds herself in. If she's placed under oath and is asked before a congressional committee if if she lied she would be confronted with those statements. There is no wiggle room here. She plainly lied based on what we know.

What would she have to do to keep herself out of further hot water? She'd have to plead the fifth. She would have to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. How would that look if the attorney General for the United States had to plead the fifth because her truthful testimony would incriminate her, make it clear that she committed a crime? I mean if that wouldn't warrant firing from

your position I know I know we're in the Trump administration where a couple accounts of perjury might be a perk on one's resume. We don't know. But I have a feeling Pam Bondi, remember who previously served as the Attorney General in Florida and was a prosecutor back in the day, she can't possibly want to put herself in a position to have to plead the fifth. So maybe that is this you know maneuvering that she's doing to try to avoid having to testify under

Roath before that committee and say, well, let's just do kind of a off the record, voluntary, fast and loose debriefing where she might be able to avoid being confronted with what clearly seems to be a previous lie to Congress.

Glenn, is there a world where Pam Bondi could be held accountable for defying a congressional subpoena in the aftermath of her tenure?

Yes, not in Trump world, but once the rule of law comes back into the light of day, her lie to Congress and if she defies a congressional subpoena, her contempt of Congress would still be well within the statute of limitations come January 2029 when a new president is sworn in. Assuming that president is somebody who cares about enforcing the laws of our nation, particularly against former high government officials, then we should be off to the accountability races by

promptly presenting the evidence to a grand jury. Brian, this is the kind of grand jury presentation. I made hundreds of grand jury presentations in my decades as a federal prosecutor, that would take about a day to present to the grand jury and ask them to vote out charges of what's called a 1001 false statement to Congress and if she defies the subpoena contempt of Congress.

I would also ask before we move on that for folks who enjoy this kind of legal analysis, the best way to see more of it is to subscribe to both of our channels. So I'm going to put those links in the post description of this video. If you're not yet subscribed and you want to support our work, support independent media, it is 100% free. Just hit the subscribe button on both of our channels.

Glenn, it's worth asking here. I spoke just a few days ago with Jamie Raskin and he had mentioned that there are some inherent powers that Congress has to hold kind of rogue agents of the federal government, other branches of federal government accountable. Do you think that it would be worth it right now to exercise some of those inherent powers that Congress has?

Brian, not only yes, but hell yes. Something we heard a lot about during the first Trump administration was Congress's inherent contempt power, which means if somebody doesn't comply with a subpoena, they could literally send the the House sergeant at arms to take the person into custody to compel their appearance. The other thing that Congress has available, as we all know, is the power of the purse.

If you have a rogue criminal attorney general atop the Department of Justice, I'll tell you, I would be loath to continue to fund DOJ's budget, you know, certainly to the extent it is being funded, when you've got somebody who is like a fugitive from justice atop the department. And you know there are some things Congress can do. Some of them are political, some of them are financial, some of them are reputational. You can vote to hold her in

contempt and she will go down in history as an attorney general. Who has been held in contempt of Congress? She wouldn't be the first, by the way. So, yes, there are some things that, you know, don't really approximate accountability, but, you know, could have the desired effect of forcing her into that witness chair under oath to answer questions like, why are you violating the Epstein-Files Transparency Act every day? Why did you redact things that the federal law prohibits you from redacting? Why did you fail to redact things that you were legally required to redact?

And why did you lie about what was in the files regarding alleged crimes by Donald Trump?

I also think, Glenn, that there's some value in looking at the fact that Christine Ohm was ousted from her position, which is to say that this administration is not immune to political pressure. I know that oftentimes it feels that way. And we look at Teflon Don and no matter what happens, no matter hot or how hot or how bad things get, it seems like nothing ever impacts this White House

because they're completely content to disregard public opinion. But the reality is that they feel it. The fact that Kristi Noem is no longer in a position is a testament to that. And Pam Bondi positioning herself

as the person responsible for suppressing the files that this administration itself ran on releasing during the campaign is not doing her any favors right now.

No. Not only did this administration run on releasing the Epstein files, but Donald Trump signed into law the Epstein Files Transparency Act requiring that the files be released. And, you know, this really is theater of the absurd. It's theater of the lawless. And, you know, in the context of the Epstein files, what it is more so than anything else is a daily re-victimization of Epstein and Maxwell

and Donald Trump's victims. And let's face it, there are countries all around the world who the minute the Epstein files were revealed publicly, launched criminal investigations that resulted in search warrants and arrests in countries around the world. But here in the U.S., no investigations, no arrests, no accountability. And that really is a testament to Pam Bondi's determination

not to do anything in connection with the Epstein files and not to see anybody held accountable up to and including Donald Trump.

Right, I mean, to that exact point, it does not take a long stretch of logic to figure out why there is no accountability at the hands of this administration when it comes to the Epstein files, recognizing how often Donald Trump appears in those files himself and what he told to Margie Taylor Greene, which was that he doesn't want his friends to get hurt. And so these are a group of people who ran on this idea of exposing this criminal cabal,

who feels like they are completely immune from any sense of justice, when the reality is that those are the exact people that this administration are looking to help. Those people make up that group and they're putting it on full display.

Again, for those who-

And Brian, let me just add, because you reminded me of that statement that's attributed to Donald Trump, I don't want my friends to get hurt. The minute I heard that, I thought to myself, one, you don't have any friends, sport. Two, you don't have any empathy for anybody, even if they are friends. And three, the only thing that you're signaling by saying, I don't want the Epstein files

released because my friends might get hurt, is that you are incriminated in those files and you don't want you to get hurt because you are the only friend you have.

Bingo. I mean, there is no world in which anybody watching or anybody who's ever seen anything as it relates to Donald Trump thinks that this is the kind of guy who's gonna jump on the sword for anybody else, throw himself onto the grenade for anybody else.

This is somebody who discards everybody and anybody the moment they lose their political usefulness. He's done it for years and years and years, and we've had a front row seat to watching it. Whether it's Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Gordon Sondland, Kayleigh McEnany, Mike Pence, Ronna McDaniel, Margie Taylor Greene, his entire administration is a graveyard of broken allegiances and broken friendships. And so if that doesn't show us that Donald Trump cares about no one other than himself, I don't know what will.

Again, for those who are watching, if you'd like to stay on top of all legal news as it relates to the Epstein files and anything else, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. to both of our channels. So I'm going to put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description. to the channel.