Prosecutor drops BAD NEWS for Pam Bondi

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we are witnessing the beginnings. of yet another vindictive prosecution at. the hands of Donald Trump. He took to. Truth Social in the aftermath of Jack. Smith's testimony for the House. Judiciary Committee writing, "Jack Smith. is a deranged animal who shouldn't be. allowed to practice law. If he were a. Republican, his license would be taken. away from him and far worse. Hopefully, the Attorney General is looking at what. he's done, including some of the crooked. and corrupt witnesses that he was. attempting to use in his case against. me." And so, this is the newest. iteration of his you know, basically DM.

to Pam where he sends a not so thinly. veiled message to the Attorney General. letting her know what he wants her to. do. And we've seen this, you know, take. place numerous times. Whether it's with. Letitia James, James Comey, Adam Schiff, Jerome Powell, the list goes on and on. and on. So, I got to ask to begin with, is the fact that Donald Trump is coming. out and saying this out loud, does that. immediately undermine any prospect of a. prosecution that the DOJ might bring. against him right off the bat? >> Absolutely. Nobody can accuse Donald.

Trump of learning from his failures. You. know, he's like a he's like a a kid who. just keeps touching the hot stove even. though he knows he's going to, you know, burn his hands. So, this is exactly or. very similar to the message he posted to. Pam Bondi about, "Look, you got to get. after Letitia James. You got to get. after James Comey. These people need to. be prosecuted. They're making us look. bad." And he would use as a. justification in that post, "Hey, they.

came after me. They impeached me. They. prosecuted me. You got to do the same to. them. You got to prosecute them." First. of all, Brian, it's not a basis to. prosecute one person because you've been. prosecuted for your crimes. And how did. those vindictive prosecutions end up for. Donald Trump? Not so good, right? The. one against James Comey went down in. flames. It got dismissed. The one. against Letitia James went down in. flames. It got dismissed and they didn't. even get to the vindictive prosecution.

claims. It got dismissed because Trump. flunky Lindsey Halligan was no more US. attorney for the Eastern District of. Virginia than was Bugs Bunny. She was. not lawfully in the position and what. happened as soon as a judge called her. out on it, she just kind of got, you. know, ridden out of DOJ on a rail. She. quit, she resigned, she fled. So, you. know, Donald Trump you would think was. would learn his lesson at some point. because his threats ring hollow over and.

over and over again. And I know part of. his, you know, calculation is, well, I'm. just going to put him through hell. I'm. going to have Pam Bondi indict them. though they committed no crimes. I'm. going to make them get lawyers and spend. a bunch of money in legal fees and be. dragged through the, you know, the mud. in public. But, you know, who comes out. looking strong? Who comes out looking. weak? I would say James Comey, Letitia. James, Jerome Powell Powell will come.

out looking strong and Donald Trump. looks like a paper tiger. He gets weaker. and weaker and weaker by the day. So, I'm sure Jack Smith is probably silently. saying to himself, bring it on. I'm ready for it. >> That doesn't change the fact that this. harassment can still, you know, wreak. havoc on somebody's life. They're going. to have to pay to defend themselves, they're going to have to deal with the. pressure of being investigated by the. Department of Justice. And so, is there.

no recourse? Like I know that if this. was a suit, you know, a civil suit for. example, that you can counter sue. for damages. That obviously isn't the. case here. And so, what's the recourse? How do you make somebody whole when. they're the victim of vindictive. prosecution beyond just the fact that, okay, if you have a judge that's acting. in good faith, this thing isn't going to. go anywhere. And in fact, none of their. vindictive prosecutions have gone. anywhere, but that doesn't change the. fact they've still spent a ton of money. They've still been saddled with the. stress um of of defending themselves.

And so, is there any way to make. yourself whole? >> No, they can't be made whole, but you. know what? They can go hard. They don't. have to sit back and wait to be. vindictively indicted. Let's Let's shift. over and talk about John Brennan, former. CIA director. There was this, you know, suggestion that they're going to. criminally investigate him down in. Florida, and they're going to try to, you know, drive that investigation into. Aileen Cannon's courthouse, because I'm. sure she can be fair and impartial, right? And, you know, John Brennan and.

his lawyer wouldn't stand for it. They. didn't just sit back and wait to be. indicted. His lawyer, Ken Weinstein, um. wrote a letter to the 11th Circuit Court. of Appeals and said, you know, this. violates every principle of fair. investigations and prosecutions, and we. want you to intervene. We don't want to. sit back and wait for John Brennan to be. vindictively indicted, and that's what. we need to see, Brian. They need to take. the fight to these lawless, abusive.

hacks at the Department of Justice who. have abandoned all allegiance to the. rule of law and are doing Donald Trump's. dirty work. DOJ is like a weapon in the. hand of Donald Trump. And people they. can't be made whole. They're going to be. put through hell. They're probably going. to be put through financial straits as. well, but they can start going hard. They don't have to sit back and wait. They should follow the John Brennan. blueprint and, you know, start pushing.

back very publicly in the courts. >> Glenn, I want to talk to you about this. idea of Pam Bondi or any other DOJ. officials shouldering legal exposure. personally for engaging in vindictive. prosecutions, but first just a reminder. for folks who are watching right now. If. you'd like to support the work uh that. that I do and the work that Glenn does, the best way to show that support is to. subscribe to our channels. It's 100%. free, but again, a great way to show. some support for us and independent. media. So, I'm going to put those links. in the post description of this video. If you've not yet subscribed, please go.

ahead and subscribe. So, Glenn, going. back to that question, does Pam Bondi or. any of these other DOJ officials. shoulder any personal legal liability if. they actually do go through with this. vindictive prosecution and a judge. agrees that they've been vindictively. prosecuting? Because then it shows that. they're abusing their position, not. acting in good faith. >> Yes, and we have concrete examples of. how Trump associated lawyers have been. held accountable for their misconduct in.

service to Donald Trump. Rudy Giuliani, another Trump lawyer, not unlike Pam. Bondi, he wasn't attorney general, but. he was doing Donald Trump's dirty work, his unethical work. And Rudy Giuliani. was disbarred in both jurisdictions. where he held law licenses, New York and. D.C. We've got Kenneth Chesebro as an. example, not only disbarred, but. criminally prosecuted, pleaded guilty. down in Georgia in connection with that. prosecution. We've got uh John Eastman,

you know, the architect of the fake. elector scheme, disbarred. We've got. Jeffrey Clark, former DOJ knucklehead, disbarred. So, absolutely, these people will have some consequences. coming to them. They will be referred to. their state bar counsel, and these. things do not happen quickly, Brian, but. I expect that to come Pam Bondi's way, Todd Blanche's way, Lindsey Halligan's. way, and it will come, you know, to any.

other dirty DOJ officials who abandoned. their oath of loyalty to the. Constitution in favor of, you know, loyalty to dear leader. But beyond that, you know, there may be adequate evidence. to open criminal investigations into. um. Bondi and company for a potential. criminal conspiracy. I don't want to mix. criminal apples and oranges, but you. know, right now Pam Bondi is in. violation of federal law with respect to. the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And.

what is she doing? She's covering up the. evidence that by law should have been. disclosed back on December 19th. And. she's covering up evidence of criminal. conduct by the people who are in those. files. I'm sure there's tons of evidence. incriminating people who were part and. parcel of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine. Maxwell's conspiracy to sex traffic. young girls. She's covering that up. That feels like a potential conspiracy.

investigation in the making. So, it's. not just kind of civil trouble that will. come her way by way of. uh referral to Bar Council for an ethics. investigation. It may involve lawsuits. being brought by people who she is. hurting right now by her lawless. activity. It's not easy to successfully. sue a government official, but you know. what? It is not within the scope of the. official duties of an attorney general. to vindictively prosecute people because. Donald Trump tweeted that he wants you.

to do it. So, she's got a world of. trouble coming her way, civil and. potentially criminal. But, you know, in. the meantime, we just have to kind of. ride out this lawless administration. We. have to fight it peacefully in every way. we can, and then look forward to the. future accountability. >> So, I'm going to talk about that a. little bit. This idea that that she can. still be held accountable. And I know. that you just dug into this uh a little. bit, but. is it going to be the responsibility of. the people who she's vindictively.

prosecuted to then bring some litigation. against her? Or, if there's some grander. conspiracy, is it going to be up to a. subsequent DOJ to bring charges against. her? And the reason I'm asking this, and. and just come along on on this journey. with me here, do you have faith then. that a Democratic DOJ is going to act in. a way that is completely antithetical to. how Merrick Garland acted, which is to. be so circumspect, so focused on. preventing the optics of politicization. that we couldn't possibly hold anybody.

in the Republican Party to account. because then the right might claim that. this is the weaponization of government. and and as far as Merrick Garland is. concerned, there's nothing worse than. being uh than being accused of of. weaponizing the government. And so, instead, we're going to wait 2 years uh. to even touch Donald Trump. And then, when we do deign to investigate him for. inciting an insurrection and seeking to. undermine a free and fair election, the. best we can do is appoint a special. counsel with so little time left that. Trump is effectively able to run out the. clock anyway.

>> Yeah, it's the kind of question that. gets my blood boiling, Brian, because if. we don't learn from the lessons of the. past, particularly the failure of. Merrick Garland's Department of Justice. to aggressively. hold Trump and company accountable, um if we, you know, decide that rather. than hold wrongdoers accountable because. somebody might accuse us of being. political or weaponizing the Department. of Justice, we're just going to go ahead. and let them all go, right? And we're.

going to hope that that restores the. public's confidence in the legitimacy. and independence of the Department of. Justice. That was Merrick Garland's. stated purpose in not going aggressively. after Trump after he committed beaucoup. crimes. And look at how that turned out. Is there any honest, you know, broker of. the facts who would say, "You know what? You're right. Look at today's Department. of Justice. It is the paradigm of.

fairness, impartiality, and. independence. No, it's the exact. opposite. It has lost all legitimacy. At. least the dirty leadership of DOJ has. lost all legitimacy. So, if we don't. learn the lessons of those horrific. mistakes of the past, then frankly, we. don't get to keep our republic. We will. lose our republic, and I would say we. should lose our republic, but I could. never bring myself to say that. So, to.

answer your your earlier, your first. part of your question, it will be up to. DOJ to aggressively go after today's. wrongdoers without fear or favor, applying the evidence and the law. And. it will also be up to the James Comeys. and the Letitia James, perhaps the Jack. Smiths and others to assert their own. rights because again, I'm going to say, it is not within the scope of the. official duties of an attorney general. to to criminally investigate or.

prosecute people because Donald Trump. tweets that that's what he wants to see. It is only if there's evidence. supporting criminal charges that those. kind of cases should move forward. And. as far as we can tell, and as far as the. courts have determined, there is no such. evidence against people like Letitia. James, James Comey, and I am betting, I'll bet my full buck on this, there is. no such evidence with respect to Jack. Smith. >> Last question here. What does the.

statute of limitations look like for. something like this? If indeed we see. that Pam Bondi has abused her oath of. office, has abused her position, and is. engaging in these vindictive. prosecutions? >> Yeah, great question. The statute of. limitations for most federal crimes is 5. years from the time of the crime until. charges must be brought. And after that, they're time-barred. You can't do it. But there's a twist here, Brian. It looks like Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche. and others. may be involved in a conspiracy to, you.

know, commit crimes against the United. States. What we call a 371 conspiracy. That's the federal statute section. And. it's a very broad statute. And if they. are involved in a conspiracy to defraud. or commit crimes against the United. States, the the statute of limitations clock. doesn't even start to run until the. conspiracy is over. And as best I can. tell, this potential conspiracy is. ongoing. And if I had to bet, I will I.

would say it will continue for as long. as Donald Trump is in power and as long. as Pam Bondi is the Attorney General. >> All right. Well, we will, of course, stay on top of this issue, not just as it relates to Jack Smith, but any other vindictive prosecutions. that Trump tries to engage in and any. other legal breaking news. So, for those. who are watching, if you'd like to. follow along or support our work, the. best way to do that, 100% free, is to. subscribe to both of our channels. I'm. going to put those links right here on. the screen and also in the post. description of this video. If you're not.

yet subscribed, please go ahead and hit. the subscribe button. I'm Brian Tyler. Cohen. >> And I'm Glenn Kirschner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].