Jamie Raskin drops BOMB about Epstein coverup

I'm joined now by Congressman Jamie. Raskin. Congressman, thanks for joining. me. >> Delighted to be with you. >> So, you had the opportunity to question. Cash Patel, the FBI director, during a. hearing today in Congress. Uh there was. a lot of focus on the fact that he had. staked so much of his reputation, so. much of his credibility on this idea. that he was going to be uh uh the guy to. come in and expose all of this uh all of. this wrongdoing as it relates to Epstein. that had been covered up by these deep. state operatives only to then basically. become the very problem that he.

criticized for so long. Did anything in. his testimony give the impression that. he is that that that he's going to be. true to his word um that he gave when he. was a podcaster as opposed to what it. seems like he's doing right now which is. just perpetuating a cover up. >> No, he's in full-blown cover up mode. Um. and it is really mind-blowing because I. confronted him with just video snippets. of him saying um this is totally within. the control of the FBI director. Um,

he's got the black bag. He can release. it. Put on your big boy pants and show. us who the pedests are. Um, and I just. turned it around and I said, "So, what. do you say? You know, are you going to. put on your big boy pants and show us. who the pedass are?" And then there was. a lot of heming and hawing and kind of. pointing fingers at the federal courts. And their whole deflection ploy has been. to say, well, we asked the courts to. release the grand jury material, which. is a totally irrelevant distraction. The.

government has just mountains of. evidentiary data, investigative data, data that they've gotten and then. they're going and saying, "We want the. grand jury data from the old Maxwell and. Epstein files, which were about Maxwell. and Epstein, not about everybody else.". So. th those judges, not only did they say, "No, we're not going to release this. under 6E. you've not shown reason why.

They also kind of called them out saying. this is a deflection because you have a. much greater mass of material that you. could just release on your own and you. don't need this stuff and it's pretty. extraneous to what the public wants to. see. So back a few months ago or years. ago whenever he said it when cashel came. out and said that really this this the. buck stops with the FBI director who of. course was not him at the time but was. he telling the truth that the buck does.

stop with the FBI director which would. in turn suggest that he right now as the. FBI director has the power to release. exactly the files that he's claiming. that that he has no power to release. >> Yes. Overwhelmingly the buck stops with. the FBI director. In other words, the. the greater mass of material out there. is within the control of the FBI. director. Everything they found when. they went to Epstein's house and they. were in his safe, all of the computers. and the memos and the telephones and the.

photographs and the videos and so on. and they're focused on a very tiny. percentage of the overall materials. which was grand jury material leading up. to the indictment of Epstein or the. indictment of Maxwell. Again, a small. fraction of everything the government. has and everything that the people want. to see. So, there were a number of false. distractions like that that he engaged. in, which says to me he's really just. flipped over. He was demanding it. They.

thought it was to their political. advantage to say, "We want to come clean. on everything. We're going to do it on. day one." And so on. And then when they. get in and he's deployed a thousand FBI. agents to pour over the material to look. for Trump's name and to make a mark. there and to redact it, then that's when. they come back and completely flip over, do a 180 degree U-turn, and say, "Um, nothing to see here. We're not. interested in this anymore." Is there. anything to suggest that the FBI under. Cash Patel's leadership is working.

toward transparency or accountability? Or does the sole project, the sole goal, the sole focus of this whole thing, is. this just a protection racket for Trump? I think it is. I mean, a great example. is he repeatedly testified to the Senate. during his confirmation hearing that. there would be no political retaliation. or retribution against people in the. FBI. And yet there's all kinds of. statements now by the by people at the. FBI that that's precisely what he's.

doing. And he's forcing huge numbers of. FBI agents out, experienced, talented, um awarded uh FBI agents are being. pushed out of the department, fired, sacked, demoted, um told they've got to. leave. Why? simply because they had. worked on the January 6th investigation. and Trump wants them out or they'd. worked on uh the Russia investigation, the investigation of Russian uh. infiltration and attacks on the 2016.

election, the 2020 election, the 2024. election, and so on. All these people. have been targeted for removal. So, he's. doing precisely what he said he wouldn't. do, which is turning the FBI into an. instrument of political revenge and. retaliation against people. >> Well, almost worse than that is even in. the event of the Charlie Kirk shooting. I mean, he was live he was basically. live tweeting it and and putting on his. podcaster hat and live tweeting the.

thing, offering up fake information, information that was ultimately proven. completely false because he can't get. out of this frame of just being this. political commentator. So, to what. extent is is this harming the. credibility of the agency that he's. supposed to be leading right now? >> Well, yeah, and that might just be. general incompetence and inexperience on. his part. I mean, he's um you know, one. of the only people who ever became FBI. director with no experience ever at the.

FBI. I mean, he was writing children's. books about uh Donald Trump, about King. Donald, and about the, you know, the. wacky wizard Cash who protects King. Donald. I mean, this is the level of. comic book fantasy world he lived in. Um. and so suddenly he's head of the. nation's premier law enforcement. organization and as you say he thinks. he's still some kind of you know just. online troll or blogger or something and.

starts you know live tweeting things. he's hearing from afar about the. investigation and he had to retract a. number of his statements. Can you talk. about uh his his unwillingness to. respond in any of the correspondents. that you had sent to him over the last. eight months? >> Well, we've been trying to raise all. kinds of things, especially about the. personnel matters and the ongoing. Stalinist style purge of FBI agents. You.

know, they're using polygraphs basically. to cross-examine FBI agents as to their. political loyalty to Donald Trump. And. so we've been trying to raise these. things and get an answer from him and. we've simply not got an answer. He. doesn't even send me form letters saying. it's been received. It just goes out. into either. So I said we got a lot of. stuff to talk about. Of course we were. all limited to our five minute question. spot and they didn't want to do another. round or a third round. I mean we could. have gone for a long time on this. So. we're going to have to get some answers.

from Attorney General Bondi when she. comes in that we never got from Cash. Patel. Of course, I think we did have. more substantive exchanges than took. place over in the Senate when he just. started screaming and yelling over the. senators. He did some of that today, but. I think that his team must have told him. that that's not a very effective. communications tactic for the director. of FBI. I know that this is a little bit of an. unfair question to ask you to get into. Cash Patel's head, but what do you. presume Cash Patel, the podcaster, would.

say if he saw an FBI director being. asked these questions point blank, very. simple questions about about the Epstein. scandal, about um you know, the this. this um effort to basically bury any any. accountability or transparency. What do. you think that he would say uh if he was. still in his capacity as a political. commentator? >> He'd say that's an FBI director in. full-blown coverup mode who's covering. up for the deep state. He would.

definitely say that. I mean, you know, we just learned from the four CEOs of. major banks like JP Morgan that there. were $1.5 billion dollar worth of. financial transactions that they. identified as suspicious activity going. through Epstein's various accounts. That. doesn't sound like um, you know, just. sort of a a prostitution ring on the.

corner. $1.5 billion dollars. I mean, my. uh colleagues across the aisle went. crazy for the SARS reports about Hunter. Biden, which were around 20 or 25. million. And here we've got a billion. half dollars going through this. international child sex ring. And we. tried to get a subpoena of these bank. CEOs. And every Republican except to uh. his great credit, Representative Massie. from Kentucky, voted against it. But.

Massie voted with all the Democrats to. subpoena these documents. Jaime Diamond. released a statement right after I first. raised it saying, you know, essentially. he'd be happy to comply and they're. sorry they ever had anything to do with. Epstein. So, you know, I think the banks. would welcome an opportunity to come. clean with all the information they've. got. On the Massie front, to your point, he is the only Republican who seems to. be engaged uh in in any effort toward. transparency.

What is the sense among your Republican. colleagues who are actively voting uh to. suppress transparency as it relates to. to you know a notorious pedophile and. the people that he surrounded himself. with? I mean, these these were people. who during the campaign were perfectly. content to exploit this issue if it. meant they can derive some political. benefit. But now that they actually have. the power to substantiate their own. promises from September and October and. every month before that, now they're the. ones actually perpetuating the cover up. themselves.

>> Well, in fairness, Lauren Boowbert, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Nancy May. still have their names on the discharge. petition. Uh, and we added one more vote. on the Democratic side when um Jerry. Connley's seat was filled by Congressman. Wenshaw. So now we just need one more. Republican, if my math is correct, but. one or two more Republicans to add their. name to the discharge petition and we. will be able to put a bill on the floor. which will have to pass overwhelmingly. saying release all the files because.

even the people who aren't signing the. discharge petition say that they would. vote for that. But you're right. I mean, the the truth of the matter is that. there's a lot of fear operating on the. Republican side, and some of it is fear. of political retaliation. Some of it is. fear of all of the death threats and. violent threats that are out there. today. And then some of it is, frankly, just tribalistic thinking. Uh we live in. very tribalistic times. And so you saw.

the center of gravity on the GOP side. just switch on a dime from release the. file, we want to know what's in there, this is sick, this is a deep state. conspiracy to uh no, we're not. interested anymore. We're willing to go. with the president. Yeah. >> Um simply because Trump changed his. mind. That is tribalistic and I think. humiliating. uh obsequious and sycopantic psychology. but it has really saturated our. politics. Now,

>> what about the prospect of the uh. Epstein files being released to the. House Oversight Committee? I are are is. that any different than the effort that. would be put forward um if the discharge. petition passes? Are are you trying to. do them in tandem for some for some. reason? Is there some uh some greater. degree of transparency that we would get. uh if the discharge petition passes? >> Well, right. The whole point is we're. passing legislation. um with the discharge petition that. would command the surrender of the. entire file. In other words, it would no.

longer be dribb. um parcled out in little political micro. doses, >> right? I think I think the last the. first batch had 97% already public uh. files included in. >> they were releasing old press releases. and old newspaper articles and I mean it. was ludicrous just so they could say it. was a big batch. It's not the stuff that. they want us to see. >> that we want. It's the stuff they don't. want us to see that we want. And we're.

afraid of course that it could be. destroyed. It could be redacted in the. meantime. And so we don't want any more. dillydowing around this. We want to just. get the file. Exactly what Cash Patel, exactly what Donald Trump was talking. about before they came into office and. they were able to review the file. themselves. >> And finally, let's finish off with this. I know that the Republican effort right. now is to try and basically convince. Well, actually, I don't really know what. what the convincing is, but to try and.

persuade the base that for some reason. uh the same Epstein files that they. staked all of their credibility on. releasing now have to be suppressed. And. again, I don't know if it's because. they're trying to claim that it was some. deep state plot that's been concocted by. by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and. James Comey and and and Clapper. or or whatever whatever it may be. I. don't I don't I don't know what. conspiracy theory we're up to right now, but what would you say to the folks who, you know, in part stake their votes on.

this Republican party based on the idea. that they would seek some accountability. for for this heinous pedophile uh and. and only to watch these people now again. engage in the same cover up uh that that. just a few months back they were. decrying. >> And what we're getting is deep state. double talk. I mean, what Cash Patel was. saying was, "Oh, we brought these. motions to the the Epstein and Maxwell. judges to release the grand jury. material." And they said, "No." Here's. what Judge Burman had to say about this.

Because these judges, not only did they. reject the request and explain precisely. why, but they also called the bluff of. the Trump administration. So, here's. Judge Burman. This is on page seven of. his ruling in the United States of. America versus Epstein, which came out. in August. And he goes, "The. government's 100,000 pages of Epstein. files and materials dwarf the 70 odd.

pages of Epstein grand jury materials. The government's Epstein files are sooie. generous. That is, they're one of a. kind. they are investigatory. and not subject to federal rule of. criminal procedure 6E. In other words, Cash Patel comes to us and says, "Well, the court says that we can't release all. of these materials because of rule 6E. about grand jury materials. Those aren't. grand jury materials. Those are. independent materials that have been.

collected by the government." And then. Burman goes on to say, "The government. is the logical party to make. comprehensive disclosure to the public. of the Epstein files. By comparison, the. instant grand jury motion appears to be. a diversion from the breadth and scope. of the Epstein files in the government's. possession." So, you even have a federal. judge saying, you know, basically, don't. make us a party to this fraud on the. public,

>> right? And I think, you know, Cash Patel. himself said it best that the buck stops. with the FBI director. So, if we're. looking for the person responsible for. secretting uh all of this information, Cash Mattel just has to consult a. mirror. Uh Congressman, as always, thank. you for the time. Thanks for continuing. to fight on this front. I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Brian, so much. [Music].