BREAKING: Epstein files update IMPLICATES TRUMP

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we have a grim update as far as. the Epstein files are concerned and it. directly implicates Donald Trump. There. has been more and more evidence from the. Epstein files emerging that implicate. Trump specifically. with some young girls. I'm not going to. share any specifics because it's too. graphic to share here. It's readily. available on on Twitter for folks who. are interested in doing a deeper dive. into this stuff, but suffice it to say. that the stories that were put forward. and submitted to law enforcement on.

behalf of these young girls are are are. as are as gruesome and vile as it gets. Which raises the question about Pam. Bondi's involvement in all of this. because just a few days ago, just a week. ago, Pam Bondi testified in front of the. Oversight Committee and she said this. >> There is no evidence that Donald Trump. has committed a crime. Everyone knows. that. This has been the most transparent. presidency. >> So, that was Pam Bondi saying, and I. quote, there is no evidence that Donald. Trump has committed a crime. But,

doesn't that negate the fact that there. is evidence contained within the Epstein. files, credibility notwithstanding. because I I don't know whether they've. gone into the credibility of that. evidence, but there does exist evidence. that Donald Trump has done something. wrong or committed a crime. And so, can. you speak to that statement that was put. forward by Pam Bondi in light of this. new evidence that's surfacing right now. from the Epstein files? Yeah, Brian, a. couple of things are at play here. First. of all, if a witness or an alleged. victim.

orally communicates to the FBI or any. law enforcement agency, "I was. assaulted." That's evidence of a. potential crime. Now, it has to be. investigated. It has to be either. corroborated or contradicted. Or if. neither of those two things can be. accomplished by law enforcement, it may. just sit in FBI or law enforcement. files, you know, sort of pending further. investigative leads that can be pursued,

but the reality is if you're reading. that in a police file, it's evidence. Um, it may not be credible evidence at the. end of the day. It may be credible. evidence at the end of the day, but it. is clearly evidence contained in the. file. So, I have to tell you, Brian, when I saw the Attorney General of the. United States, Pam Bondi, say "There is. no evidence that Donald Trump committed. any crime." And then we started to see. reports from people who are doing deep. dives into the, you know, millions of.

Epstein documents and things began to. emerge that seemed to implicate or at. least reference some of the things. Donald Trump had done. I I, you know, I agree with a number of. lawmakers that I have heard say Pam. Bondi lied in her testimony before the. House Judiciary Committee. It would have. been very different if she had said, for. example, "There is no credible evidence. in the Epstein files that Donald Trump.

engaged in any criminal activity." You. know what? That word would have done. some real heavy lifting in protecting. her against an allegation that she lied. to Congress. Now, she would have to back. it up with, for example, you know, "We. saw the references to Donald Trump's. conduct in there. We drilled down. We. investigated. We interviewed the. witnesses and the victims and we deemed. it to be not credible at the end of the. day." Then if she had said, "There's no.

credible evidence in the Epstein files. that Donald Trump engaged in any crimes. or misconduct," that might be a. completely different story. That's not. what she said, and that's why I think. you are hearing some lawmakers, and I. agree with those lawmakers, it appears. that Bondi committed the crime of making. a false statement to Congress. It's kind. of similar to perjury, but when somebody. lies to Congress, whether under oath or. not, it's what we call a 1001.

statement under 18 United States Code. Section 1001, false statements to. Congress. Each false statement you make. to Congress carries with it up to 5. years in prison. And you know, based on. this old prosecutor's assessment of her. testimony and what we are learning, what's emerging from the Epstein files, it seems like, you know, at some point. she's going to have to be investigated. once the rule of law comes back into the.

light of day for the potential crimes. she committed before Congress. Well, it's clear that the DOJ under Pam Bondi. is not going to investigate Pam Bondi. I. mean, hell, the whole point of this DOJ. is that they don't investigate or. prosecute anybody aligned with their. administration. But I guess the question. remains, what is the statute of. limitations for something like this, and. is it something that a subsequent. administration would be able to pick up? Yeah, a 1001 violation, false statement. to Congress, carries a 5-year statute of. limitations. So, assuming the next.

presidential election goes to the. Democrats, then you're going to have the. rule of law becoming a thing again, importantly, in the Department of. Justice itself. And the one thing I have. been beating the drum about, Bryant, as. have you, is, you know, we tried the. lack of accountability route last time. when Donald Trump left office. And you. know, it feels to me like Merrick. Garland sort of de facto was of the. belief that, again, we have to just put.

this long national nightmare behind us. with no accountability for any of the. crimes of Trump and company. Eventually, when push came to shove, he appointed. Jack Smith. Too little, too late, notwithstanding Jack Smith's best. efforts. But, you know, we have we have. been fooled before, right? Gerald Ford. said we were going to put the long. national nightmare behind us by deciding. to pardon Richard Nixon and you know, make sure there was no accountability at.

all for the crimes that he committed in. a very real sense against the American. people. I would assert that in fact, in. practice, we tried that again last time. Donald Trump left power. And you know. what? If we do it a third time once the. Democrats come back into power, if we. again decide for whatever reason to. decline to hold Trump and company. accountable for their crimes, as far as. I'm concerned, we don't we don't keep. our republic and frankly, I don't think. we deserve to keep our republic. So,

that's why, you know, I will remain, you. know, focused like a laser beam on. accountability for the crimes being. perpetrated against the American people. by Trump and anybody else that an. investigation shows committed crimes. They need to be held accountable. And. I'm so glad you said that. And I would. use this opportunity then to tell folks. who aren't yet subscribed to both of. these channels, both my channel and. Glenn's channel, if you think that our. commentary is important and meets the. urgency of this moment, the best way to. show some support for our work is to.

subscribe to our channels. It's 100%. free, but it's a great way to support us. and independent media. So, those links. are in the post description of this. video. If you're not yet subscribed, please go ahead and subscribe. Glenn, so. we've we've spoken about the prospect of. Pam Bondi having committed the crime of. lying to Congress, basically lying under. oath. But you and I have also spoken. about another crime that she and other. officials of the DOJ have possibly. committed and that is that is to act as. an accessory after the fact. So, can you. speak about that a little bit because.

your theory of this case has actually. been validated by a number of state. attorneys general that I've spoken with. after the fact. Yeah, you know, if we learned anything. going back to the Watergate era, if the. crime doesn't get you, the cover-up will. because it really was the cover-up that. brought Richard Nixon and his criminal. associates down. So, now we have the. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the Deputy. Attorney General, Todd Blanched, and. potentially others engaged in what sure.

looks like a cover-up. We would need to. drill down, we would need to. investigate, but we know that there are. improper redactions being made to the. Epstein files in violation of federal. law, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and we know some of the potential. wrongdoers, their identity is being. hidden from the public in violation of. federal law. If that is not accessory. after the fact helping people avoid.

accountability for their crimes, I don't. know what is. You know, to be an. accessory after the fact, all it takes. is you have to know a crime has been. committed in violation of the laws of. the United States, and you have to do. anything that would actually help the. perpetrator avoid detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment. You. know, by by wrongfully and unlawfully. concealing the names of people who seem.

to have been been involved in criminal. conduct contained in the Epstein files, it's really no different than Pam Bondi. just hiding these people out in their. basement to make sure what? That they're. not detected, that they're not tried, that they're not punished, that they're. not held accountable for their crimes. So, the elements, the principles of the. the crime accessory after the fact seem. to be there in spades. And again, we. have to wait for the rule of law to come. back into the light of day, you know,

because we know Pam Bondi and Todd. Blanched are not going to hold. themselves accountable, and they're sure. as heck not going to do anything that. could, you know, visit Donald Trump in a. negative way. Glenn, do you have faith that our. judicial system can handle this? And I. ask as somebody who did hundreds of. episodes with you in. during the, you know, 2020 to 2024. period where Trump was being prosecuted. in four legitimate different cases, was. indicted in these cases, and none of.

them were able to to be seen through. until the end. And so, look, I know that. I know that a lot of people watching. this right now are going to are going to. say, "Yeah, yeah, sure they can be held. accountable, but but what is there to. show that we actually have the stomach. to hold powerful people to account in. this country given everything that we've. seen?" And so, what would your response. be to to to that criticism? Yeah, Brian, it's a fair question and. and it's an important question. Do I. think the judiciary is up to the task of. holding, in particular, the ruling class.

criminals accountable? My answer is yes. And now half of the viewers have. probably said, "Glenn, you're full of baloney because we're not. seeing a lot of accountability coming to. Donald Trump." But I I I always have to. ask folks to take a step back and. remember where we were when Trump won. the last presidential election. We were. in the process of. challenging corrupt Judge Aileen. Cannon's dismissal of the classified.

documents case, challenging it in the. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. And let. me tell you, Jack Smith's team would. have won that challenge. The case would. have been returned to the trial court, probably with the 11th Circuit Court of. Appeals ordering that it not go back to. Judge Cannon, but rather go to a fair, independent, impartial judge because the. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had. previously reversed, I would call it a. smackdown, reversed Judge Cannon twice.

previously for abusing her judicial. discretion in favor of Donald Trump. I. mean, I still have a hard time absorbing. that she was not removed from the. classified documents case earlier. Um, but that case was in active litigation. It would have been returned and it would. have gone forward because it wouldn't. enjoy presidential immunity. These were. crimes Donald Trump was indicted for. after he left the presidency. No. presidential immunity for that. Where.

were we in the January 6th case? There. were four felony charges indicted. against Donald Trump. True, a. compromised Supreme Court rewrote the. Constitution and gave him absolute. immunity, but only for one category of. crimes. Crimes that he committed as part. of his core constitutional functions, like sending the military to kill his. political opponents. For some reason, six justices of the Supreme Court. thought that was a good idea to give a.

president, you know, free reign, leeway, a get out of jail free card for ordering. the military to kill his political. opponents. Again, I don't know this. world that we're living in right now, Brian, but there were two other. categories of presidential crimes. One, crimes that a president commits in his. official capacity enjoys a presumption. of immunity, but the prosecutors can. rebut that presumption. And perhaps most. importantly, private acts of a. candidate, like a candidate who is.

aggrieved because he lost an election, so he committed crimes to try to. unlawfully retain the power of the. presidency, there is no immunity for. those crimes. And I maintain the J6. crimes for which Donald Trump was. indicted fall into that third category. Where were we in that case? We were in. front of Judge Tanya Chutkan in. litigating the precise issues that I. just laid out in these three categories. of crimes and that case would have.

proceeded to trial. Wouldn't have been. quick, wouldn't have been easy. We were. in the process, the judiciary, you know, but for the six compromised. Supreme Court justices, the judiciary. writ large was in the process of holding. Donald Trump accountable. And it was. only because he got elected president. and DOJ has deigned that you can't. prosecute a sitting criminal president, but you can once he leaves office. We're. not done by a long shot and the. judiciary was holding strong with a few.

notable exceptions, Aileen Cannon and. some of the Supreme Court justices. I. still believe to my core, Brian. I was. in the business of, uh, you know, of a. federal prosecutor for 30 years. I still. believe to my core the federal judiciary. is up to the task and if given the. opportunity and the way it will be given. the opportunity is if, you know, Donald. Trump falls from power, hopefully, you. know, even before the end of his. four-year term at the rate he's going. I. don't wish him any harm and I'm always,

you know, talking about how we have to. fight peacefully to make sure he gets. dethroned at the earliest possible. moment, but once he falls from power, we. should be back in the business of. holding Donald Trump accountable for his. crimes. So, in the most long-winded. answer I've ever given you, yes, I have. faith and confidence that the judiciary. remains up to the task. You know, the the difficult part for me. to process is. we are told that the American judicial.

system is like the gold standard, right? And then we see this kind of stuff. happen at the hands of Donald Trump. We. see the judiciary unable to to see his. prosecution, um, through to the end and. then just like that we see Brazil, uh, prosecute and and imprison, you know, their their criminal, uh, leaders. We. see it in South Korea. Like, these other. countries who don't beat their chest as. these, as these behemoths of law and. order, these beacons of of virtue and. integrity. Like, they are just they're.

just regular other countries around the. world that are able to do what somehow. eludes us in this, in this shining city. on a hill in America. Brian, I don't even think I would call. the the USA one of the regular old. countries. I think we have fallen. beneath the expectation of a civilized. country, and we should look to and learn. from the other countries that have. decided, apparently, I think we can. throw France into that category as well,

decided that they are determined to hold. folk accountable even if those people. are rich, powerful, influential, connected. Other countries have the have. decided, no, the rule of law will apply. to those folk as well, and they go about. using the same system they use against. everybody else, and they hold them. accountable. You know, we are falling so. far beneath that sort of, you know, basic,

sort of responsibility. of a civilized nation that, you know, we. we are going to need to kind of dig. ourselves out of this hole and restore, you know, the public's faith in our. ability to treat everybody equally under. the law. Well, look, I'm grateful for. your voice in hopefully getting us back. to that point at some at at some. juncture in in in the future. So, for. those who are watching again, if you'd. like to support our work, elevate our. voices, the best way to do that is to. subscribe. I'm going to put the links to. both of our channels right here on the.

screen. So, if you're not yet. subscribed, please go ahead and hit the. subscribe button. Completely free to do. so, but again, a great way to support us. and independent media. I'm Brian Tyler. Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirschner. You're. watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].