Pam Bondi faces CONSEQUENCES for Epstein coverup

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we've had an explosive revelation. from the Epstein files. So, just days. ago we found out that there were. accusations made against Donald Trump. from. a woman who was at one point a minor who. claimed that Donald Trump had done. horrific things. Now, those files were. suppressed and they've just been. released, which raises the obvious. question here, was somebody who was in. charge of releasing these Epstein files, meaning Pam Bondi, violating the law. because the plain text of the Epstein. Files Transparency Act says, and I'm. going to put it right here on the. screen, the bill said no documents could.

be redacted on the basis of. embarrassment, reputational harm, or. political sensitivity. And yet, we now. know that there were accusations against. Trump that were redacted, and Donald. Trump, of course, is a political figure, meaning that those documents were. clearly suppressed to protect him. And. so, what are the implications now for. Pam Bondi given the fact that we know. she's clearly violated the law. Brian, it seems undeniable that DOJ has. violated the Epstein Files Transparency.

Act. I'm going to I'm going to say. dozens of times. They've missed. deadlines. They They not only failed to. disclose files that the law required. them to disclose, they were supposed to. explain any redactions they made. They. were supposed to do a catalog. This is. what the law required explaining. redactions. They did none of it. They. have blown through deadline after. deadline. They have violated, you know, one provision after another. So, there.

is no straight-faced argument that DOJ. has complied fully with the Epstein. Files Transparency Act. But, that really. is only the beginning on the road to. accountability because here's some. things that we have to keep in mind. First of all, what they're going to. claim is that we had teams of dozens, maybe hundreds of DOJ attorneys and. employees pouring through this. So, even.

though the buck stops at the top of the. organization, practically speaking, with. Pam Bondi, it doesn't necessarily stop. there, legally speaking. Prosecutors. would have to prove that she knew that. there were files responsive to the. Epstein Files Transparency Act required. to be disclosed, and she specifically. suppressed them. So, that would, you. know, that would be a legal battle,

literally an an. an investigation would have to be. launched, there would have to be a grand. jury proceeding opened, and dozens, maybe hundreds of witnesses would have. to testify before the grand jury, each. one saying, "I was responsible for this. 100,000 batch, and here is what I and my. team went about doing." And, you know, I. hate to say it, but it feels almost. unwieldy to even this old prosecutor to. try to build a case that would result in.

some kind of accountability being. placed, you know, where it deserves to. be, legally. But, there's another. complicating factor here, Brian. The. Epstein Files Transparency Act requires, by law, that DOJ disclose all these. files, and it's clear they violated it. They have withheld files, they have, you. know, not explained redactions, etc. But, there is no penalty attached in the. federal law to a violation of the.

Epstein Files Transparency Act. So, that. makes accountability all the less. likely. It doesn't mean there aren't. some criminal statutes at play if. you violate a federal law, even if that. law has no punishment attached to it, and you do it to try to help somebody. else avoid criminal responsibility, then. you could be an accessory after the. fact. That is a federal criminal charge.

You could be in a conspiracy to cover it. up, a conspiracy to defraud or commit. offenses against the United States, what. we call a 371 conspiracy. So, in theory, Brian, there is potential criminal. liability here, but I'll tell you, building a case would be pushing an. enormous rock up the hill. Is there a different way? Like, for. example, if there are prosecutors, you. know, most of the prosecutors within the law. enforcement agencies are still.

holdovers. They're still career uh. prosecutors, even if the top echelon are. going to be political hacks for Donald. Trump. But, if there is a group of. people who are willing to come forward, um who know better, for example, maybe. Maurene Comey, who was in charge of the. Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution, who knows. what files exist and could very clearly, unequivocally state that there are. plenty of files that implicate Donald. Trump and they weren't released. I mean, isn't that an easier avenue to point to. the fact that there was suppression. taking place at the at the hands of. these uh high-ranking government.

officials? Absolutely. And, you know, I. hate to say that I'm disappointed that. we haven't had people, including people. who were wrongfully terminated, who were. fired without cause, you know, while. Donald Trump continues on his revenge. tour, who have not decided, had not have. not been willing to come forward and. talk openly about what they know is in. the Epstein files. I'm not talking about. grand jury protected information, because whether you're still a DOJ.

attorney or employee or you've left. government service, you still can't. disclose things that are grand jury. protected. Um but, uh you know, I I I I. guess I wonder out loud why we haven't. had more uh former federal prosecutors. who, as you say are definitely privy to. what's in the Epstein and the Maxwell. files and who I am sure know that the. the public hasn't seen it all and that. Pam Bondi and her DOJ officials are in a.

very real sense responsible for. suppressing it, why they haven't come. forward. But here is, I think, what I am hoping to see in the near. future because the good news is Congress. is issuing subpoenas and there are some. Republican crossovers um to the. Democrats and they're issuing subpoenas. to people like Howard Lutnick and Pam. Bondi. These are undoubtedly people. Donald Trump doesn't want to see hit the. stand in a congressional hearing to. testify about the Epstein files. Well, I.

would urge members of Congress, members. of the relevant committee to subpoena. the Marine Marine Comeys of of this, you. know, whole affair because she is now in. private practice. I believe I saw a. recent announcement that she's joined a. firm. There's nothing preventing her. from testifying about what she knows as. long as she doesn't compromise grand. jury secrecy. I want to ask you about. one specific reason that these officials. might not be willing to testify right.

now. But before we get to that, just a. quick note for anybody who's watching. If you'd like to stay on top of any. legal news as it relates to the Epstein. files or any other legal news, please. make sure to subscribe to both of our. channels. We'll be covering this on a. daily basis and it's completely free to. do so. So I'm going to put those links. in the post description of this video. If you're not yet subscribed, please. head over and hit that link and go ahead. and subscribe. So Glenn, might one. reason that we're not hearing from the. Marine Comeys of the world be that. they're subject to increased legal. scrutiny, legal pressure at the hands of. a DOJ that has already shown that it's.

willing to abuse their positions to. silence their their dissenters and. opponents. And so if Marine Comey comes. forward, the DOJ can say, you know, can. claim these these sweeping claims of. privilege and try to prosecute her for. speaking out about what she knows. You. know, it's a great observation. You. know, we I guess would love for public. officials, even after they leave office, to just stand up and provide information. that will debunk anything that the.

Department of Justice is trying to sell. to the American people or even more. importantly expose things that are maybe. being suppressed in violation of the law. like the Epstein files Transparency Act. But But here's the other thing. If. private citizens, which Maureen Comey is. now, just kind of step into the public. square and start talking about it, there. will be a lot of legal attacks coming. her way. I'm not saying they would be. successful legal attacks, but legal. attacks nonetheless. However, there is.

um. a lot of protection provided by a. subpoena. What do I mean by that? Once. Congress issues a subpoena or a grand. jury issues a subpoena or a trial court. issues a subpoena, you are now compelled. to testify, including if you get a. congressional subpoena. Now, yes, people. will go in there. They'll try to duck. and dodge. They'll play games. They'll. be non-responsive. They'll invoke. privileges like against. self-incrimination or executive. privilege or work product privilege. And.

there are legal uh vehicles to test. those kind of privileges. But once you. have that subpoena, nobody can accuse. you of just coming forward in the public. square and beginning to talk about what. you know because you are now being. legally compelled. A subpoena is. virtually a court order or an order of. Congress saying, "You must talk unless. you have some kind of a legitimate. privilege you can invoke and and that. protects you against having to testify.".

So, maybe that's what the Maureen Comeys. of the world are waiting for. I can. understand why because what we know is. in the Trump administration if there is. a way for Donald Trump to try to take. revenge against you, you can bet he's. going to do it. Yeah, which I guess. raises raises the question. Do you think. and we've spoken about this before, but. do you think that there will be. sufficient appetite in the subsequent. administration to actually make sure to. investigate and prosecute the abuses.

that are happening right now because. clearly in the aftermath of the Biden. administration, there was no deterrent. effect because Merrick Garland proved. that his whole priority was preventing. the optics of politicization and so he. wasn't going to aggressively move. forward. I mean hell, he wouldn't even. investigate Donald Trump himself. Waited. two years before he finally deigned to. appoint a special prosecutor and that. was Jack Smith and by then, you know, Trump had been able to run out the clock. for these remaining two years, became. president and all of these prosecutions. and indictments went away. And so do you.

think there's going to be adequate. uh appetite to actually move forward. with some of these prosecutions so that. there is a deterrent effect that so that. this never happens again in the future? Yeah, Brian, we have talked about this. and and let me just say it as directly. and clearly as I can. If we don't go on a scorched earth. accountability mission when the Trump. administration falls from power, then I don't believe we deserve to keep. our republic and it really doesn't. matter what I believe because I don't I.

don't think we get to keep our republic. We have been fooled several times over. at least dating back to Richard Nixon. and Watergate. He committed all kinds of. crimes in violation of our federal laws. against the American people and we. decided that we would put the long. national nightmare behind us by. declining to hold him accountable for. his crimes. What did that produce? Well, among other things it gave us Donald. Trump and when he committed all kinds of.

crimes both classified documents and, you know, election stealing crimes in. 2020 when he lost the election, we. apparently decided to take no action. again, as you point out, 4 years until. it was too little, too late. Brian, if. we do this again, all we're doing is. giving permission, indeed encouragement, for the bad actors like Trump and. company to just make sure next time. around they are successful in destroying. our democracy. So, when I say we need to.

go on a scorched-earth accountability. mission, I'm talking about, you know, aggressively investigating every crime, many of them we see, you know, in in the. harsh light of day with our own eyes. being committed by Trump and his. criminal associates, but we need to do. it fairly, apolitically, in accordance. with the evidence, the law, and the. Constitution, period. But, it needs to. be aggressive, indeed it needs to be. scorched-earth. And finally, last question here.

Given the fact that I think it's pretty. clear that crimes are being committed, laws are being violated, when does the the clock start and how. long is the statute of limitations in. terms of. the amount of time we would need to get. these things off the ground? For most. crimes, there's a 5-year statute of. limitations. Some crimes, it's much. longer. Murder, for example, has no. statute of limitations. When does the. clock start? That's a great That's a. great question. So, once a crime is.

complete, that's when the clock starts. ticking and it doesn't stop ticking. until a charge is brought for that. crime. However, a lot of what's going on. looks like a conspiracy. It looks like. there are multiple government officials. getting together to agree to wrongfully. suppress evidence or to agree to commit. any number of other crimes. The good. news about a conspiracy is it's an. ongoing crime. So, until the very last.

co-conspirator. commits the very last act that could be. perceived as part of that ongoing. conspiracy, the the clock doesn't start. to run. And I tell you Brian, based on. what I see, I see conspiracies up and. running in the Trump administration as. we speak. So, I think plenty of these. crimes are going to survive a statute of. limitations challenge assuming of course. Donald Trump doesn't pardon everybody.

and I have to believe somebody's keeping. a list of all of the pardons that he. will need to deliver, you know, on his. way out of the Oval Office door. Um and then we're going to have a whole. new battle to fight whether a criminal. president can deliver a corrupt pardon. to somebody who is a potential criminal. associate. And those are some legal. issues that have really not been. approached in federal court such that we. have some kind of precedent to go by, but that in my opinion is part of the.

scorched earth accountability mission we. need to go on. It should include. challenging in court corruptly delivered. pardons. Well, we will of course stay on. top of this stuff for those who are. watching right now. As I mentioned. before, this is something that we're. going to keep on our radar not just. during the Trump administration but. after the Trump administration. So, for. those who want to stay on top of this. stuff, please make sure again to. subscribe to both of our channels. It's. a great way to support our work, a great. way to support independent media and as. always it is 100% free and will stay.

100% free. So again, those links are. right here on the screen. I'm Brian. Tyler Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirschner. You're watching the legal breakdown. >> [music].