Jamie Raskin drops LEGAL BOMB on top Trump official

I'm joined now by Congressman Jamie. Raskin. Congressman, thanks for joining. me again. Brian, thank you for having me. on. So, Congressman, you have some news. to share about a new criminal referral. that you're working on right now as it. relates to a. former top Trump administration. official. Can you explain what that news. is? Well, I mean, we can't allow people to. come before Congress and then lie or. conceal material facts, both of which. are against the law. It's against the. law to make. material false statements under oath,

period. And then there's a specific. statute which. adds that you can't conceal material. facts from Congress when you're. testifying to Congress. And. Kristi Noem came here and it's just. inescapable that she engaged in false. statements and concealed material. facts from Congress repeatedly. So, in terms of whether or not this. criminal referral is successful, the.

criminal referral goes to the Department. of Justice. And so, if we're talking. about putting the fate of whether or not. Kristi Noem for lying to Congress, putting the fate of Kristi Noem in the. hands of Pam Bondi, I think it's clear. to everybody what Pam Bondi is going to. do, or I should say what she is not. going to do. And so, how do you overcome. the obstacle of the fact that this is a. this is a Department of Justice and an. Attorney General who are there not to. uphold the law without fear or favor, but rather just to run a protection. racket against Trump and all of his.

acolytes. Well, I sent this letter with Senator. Durbin from the the Senate Judiciary. Committee. And the single most important. line in our letter might be. the simple restatement of what the. federal statute of limitations is on. lying to Congress. And that's 5 years. And that takes you beyond the Trump. administration. So, all of those. um. well-trained cabinet officials in the.

Trump administration who think that. their job is just to cover up for the. president and to lie in every context. possible must reflect on the fact that. we have federal criminal statutes which. make it a crime to lie under oath, and. those actions, those criminal. prosecutions can be brought for a 5-year. period. So, if we are in a world where. Kristi Noem is held to account as as you.

know, there is a criminal referral sent. to the DOJ and a subsequent attorney. general, one who is not there to just. protect Republican officials, but rather. to uphold the law without fear or favor, if we enter that world, then would it. why would it just be limited to Kristi. Noem? There are other administration. officials or other figures in the. federal government who have also. committed the same violation. I think. these are 1001 violations lying to. Congress. Uh just a few weeks ago, Pam Bondi sat. in front of uh a congressional committee. and said that there is no evidence. implicating Donald Trump or tying Donald.

Trump to the Epstein files. That's. patently false. Now, the credibility of. that evidence notwithstanding, she. didn't make that caveat. She said. there's no evidence tying Donald Trump. uh to any criminal activity within the. Epstein files, and we know that there. are interviews where uh where Donald. Trump was accused of of committing. crimes uh that are contained within the. Epstein files. And so, how are you. thinking about about this about. consistency as it relates to lying to. Congress? Well, I mean, some of the lies that Noem.

engaged in are easily contradicted by. the public record. So, for example, she. said that the DHS always complies with. court orders and always follows court. orders. We know that there were at least. 210 cases that have been cited by courts. themselves where the Department of. Homeland Security violated court orders. and in fact the Department of Justice. even admitted it in 50 cases and yet she.

said not. Okay, so that that's one where. we publicly can determine that. she was lying. But then she was also lying about things. that she did where it would be tough to. know. without you know pretty deep. investigative work. that she was lying. But we were able to. determine she was lying for example. about this $220 million. contract where she told the Senate that. that was the product of competitive.

bidding. That was a lie. My colleague Joe Neguse. refuted her and said here's the form you. filled out to escape competitive. bidding. You said you were invoking a. national security exception. Why you. needed to invoke a national security. exception for a PR contract, you know, to show you on horseback. you know, out in the wild west um. you know, it is a little bit weird. But.

in any event he showed that that wasn't. true. And then. she said oh well right but you know, we. looked at different bidders but those. were all different friends of hers. So. that was a dodge about you know, the the. competitive bidding process. So the. bottom line is you can't come and lie. before Congress any more than you can go. and lie in court and we have got to hold. the line on that. to show that the perjury laws and the. material false statement laws mean.

something. But I guess my broader question is there. are other people who have also lied who. are who have also told demonstrably. false statements not just Pam Bondi for. example which was the the the example. that I brought up before but also what. about these Republican Supreme Court. Justices who, when they were just uh. nominees sitting in front of, you know, the the the Senate for their advice and. consent uh uh hearings, they said that. they respected stare decisis and. respected precedent and then immediately.

went and overturned Roe v. Wade. I mean, there there there is this sense as. people watch this that you can say. whatever you want to Congress and then. once you're in a position of power, you. can flip-flop immediately and there are. just no consequences for it anymore. >> That's right. Well, look, my point is. this, the Supreme Court Justices are in. a somewhat different category. Like, they all got up and they swore their. fealty to stare decisis and precedent, but then it's very easy for them to. invoke various exceptions to stare. decisis when factual circumstances have.

changed, when the law has changed, and. so on. That's pretty slippery. So, that's tough on that particular case, but the the ones you've invoked with. respect to the Attorney General are. serious and real. Um and so, we simply need to get the. word out in a determinant way, we are. watching you. You can't get up and lie. before Congress under oath the way that. Donald Trump can get up and lie the way. he does every single day from the White.

House Oval Office or on the tarmac. someplace. Yeah, nobody can get him on. that. The Supreme Court has said that. under the First Amendment, um you. basically can't make it a crime to lie. unless somebody's under oath or unless. we're talking about uh fraud in order to. deprive somebody of their property and. so on. But, we can't get so conditioned. by Donald Trump's lies that the word. goes out among the cabinet secretaries.

that you can go ahead and say whatever. you want. An interesting thing about uh. Attorney General Bondi was she refused. directly to answer questions basically. from any Democrat, she changed the. subject, she evaded, she began talking. about irrelevant stuff going on in other. parts of the country and so on. She had. her I think she had her little burn book. as well, so everything devolved into a. personal attack against every Democrat. >> it into ad hominem attacks. Yeah, all of. that was a way perhaps on her part to.

avoid committing perjury. Because the. truth is none of them is going to say. anything that. contradicts Donald Trump. Now, one of. the ways that we assert that Noem lied. was with respect to Donald Trump because. she was asked the question, "Did you. tell uh Donald Trump, did you get his. approval, then did he know that you have. this $220 million contract?" And she. repeatedly said both in the Senate and.

House that she did. He. uh directly refuted that and said he. didn't know anything about it. One of. them is lying. She was under oath. And if she was lying, that's perjury. He. wasn't under oath and he lies all the. time. So, that might be the one that's. hardest for us to prove, but in any. event, one of them is definitely lying. Congressman, is is there anything that. Congress can do. um to vindicate crimes against Congress, which is to say lying to Congress, you. know, committing perjury, or or um.

committing contempt of Congress to to to. to vindicate crimes against Congress if. and when the DOJ inevitably abdicates. its responsibility to adjudicate those. things? Right. Well, one thing we can do. is we can wait for a future. administration to come in if the statute. of limitations last that long. That was. the point I was making before. But, we. also can hold people in contempt of. Congress. Uh there's an old power that. Congress has called inherent contempt.

And the Supreme Court repeatedly ruled. that the Congress has the power to uh. render both civil and criminal contempt. charges. Civil contempt being holding. someone or finding someone until they. give Congress what Congress has demanded. in a subpoena, whether it's testimony or. documents or what have you, but also. criminal contempt. You can be punished. by Congress for. acting in contempt of Congress, which.

would include lying. Um and there were people that were we're. talking a century ago now, but who were. held in contempt of Congress for. engaging in behavior like that. Is that something that Congress would. consider looking into in the event that. Democrats retake the house and Pam Bondi. and this DOJ continue to abdicate their. responsibilities to uphold the law? Well, there was a lot of talk about it. during the first Trump administration.

where we had a majority in the first 2. years and a lot of people explored it. and people were even looking for the old. jail that nobody could find that was. somewhere in the the maze of the capital. basement. to see whether, you know, this could be. done. It never really crystallized. legislatively, but it could crystallize. legislatively in the future if we. continue to have spokespeople. for the administration, cabinet. secretaries coming forward and blatantly.

lying to Congress. Is there a world in. which that that contempt power. could be used to compel the release of. the Epstein files if we're at a point. where Pam Bondi continues to refuse to. release these 3 million outstanding. documents? Um there is nothing in the inherent. power of contempt that would prevent. that from being used in that way. Now, we shouldn't have to, you know, cite the. inherent power of congressional contempt.

to get the executive branch of. government to comply not just with the. subpoena but with a federal law. Um but. we will use any means at our disposal. But basically, um. Congress [clears throat]. uh would go to court to say that there's. not compliance taking place and that the. federal government is not itself. enforcing the law. But I I would say we. have to use any means at our disposal to. restore the rule of law in America. And.

we are living through this absolutely. atrocious reign of lawlessness um and. terror as we saw in Minneapolis. And you. know, if you've got government agents. who think that the Constitution doesn't. apply to them and the rule of law. doesn't apply to them, then you're going. to end up seeing US citizens getting. shot in the face by government agents. And that's where we're at. Donald Trump, who feels absolute immunity and impunity. because of some things the Supreme Court. has done, has let the message go out. throughout his administration that.

they're somehow above the law. And. that's what makes this such a dangerous. moment. And and actually I wanted to ask. you about exactly that, which is some. news that Greg Bovino, who was formerly. the person who was overseeing all of. these ISO operations, including when. Rene Gooden and Alex Perry. were were shot and killed in the streets. of Minneapolis, that there is reporting now that he will. be leaving government at the end of this. month. Can I have your reaction to that? Um yeah, I mean I don't know under what. circumstances cuz I'm hearing this from.

you. I'm not sure I I saw that before. Um so uh there does seem to be an effort. to change the subject. Um Minneapolis. was an absolute political Waterloo for. the Republican Party where millions and. millions of Americans turned against. them uh for violating not just the. rights of immigrants but the rights of. US citizens to the point of shooting. them because they were bearing a lawful. firearm uh consistent with state law and. the Second Amendment uh to the point.

where you know, uh US citizens are being. shot down simply for exercising their. First Amendment rights. So, the the. they're not supposed to use, apparently, the phrase mass deportation anymore. The. public understands that mass deportation. is shorthand for violating the rights of. the people and trampling the Bill of. Rights. So, I don't know whether getting. rid of him now is part of that or, like. most of them, he wants to try to cash in. as quickly as possible and make money as.

quickly as possible because I understand. that the whole thing from. uh you know, from jump ball is they're. trying to make as much money as possible. off of the American people. And Donald. Trump has made billions of dollars in. just over 1 year in office. Um and we. believe that the Trumps want to make. themselves the richest family in America. before they leave office or before. they're forced to leave office.

Congressman, I want to switch gears. finally to one last point, and that is. that applications are now open for the. Democracy Summer 2026. uh program. And this is this is a. program you and I have spoken about at. length. So, can you give um uh. a little bit of an introduction on what. that is for folks who don't know about. it and why it's so important? Well, I. appreciate that, Brian. It's for high. school and college kids across America. uh who are paying attention politically. or maybe just starting to pay attention. and want to get more engaged and. involved. And so, you sign up with.

Democracy Summer, uh you will get to. participate um in um. nationwide campaign zooms um with people. like Heather Cox Richardson and Larry. Tribe and Tim Snyder and Bennie. Thompson, Nancy Pelosi, you name it. And. then you go out and you exercise your. First Amendment rights. uh by involving yourself with the. campaign and there people are. engaged in door knocking in canvassing.

in. registering voters what have you and so. it's a really great life changing. opportunity but you'll be able to change. not just your life but your country too. because. young people. have been dramatically affected by. things going on. whether we're talking about war whether. we're talking about the high cost of. housing and education and groceries and. young people. need to be engaged in this process and. that's without even getting to some.

overarching crises of our time like. climate change and like artificial. intelligence that young people need to. have their voices engaged in. Well look. if anybody watching is in high school or. college or know someone in high school. or college who you think would be a good. fit for this program I could not. recommend it highly enough I've been a. major fan of this for years and years. and years so I'm going to put the link. to Democracy Summer right here on the. screen and also in the post description. of this video again highly recommend. that you sign up Congressman as always.

thank you for the time I appreciate it. so much. Thank you so much Brian.