Prosecutor drops BOMB on Pam Bondi amid Epstein coverup

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, it is beyond clear that Pam Bondi. is helping Donald Trump in this Epstein. files cover-up. And I think the the. question that a lot of us are asking is, how do you hold accountable the Attorney. General when it's the Department of. Justice's job to actually enforce the. law? And the person at the top of it, obviously, isn't going to subject. herself to the wrath of the DOJ. But. there might actually be a workaround. that that would make it possible to hold. Pam Bondi to account. Can you explain. what that is? Yeah, Brian, it's a real. challenge when the Attorney General.

commits a crime, lying to Congress, and. we'll talk about the facts that support. that assertion in a minute. But when the. Attorney General commits a crime, and. the institution that would criminally. investigate that crime is the Department. of Justice headed up by the Attorney. General, what do we do? Well, there. actually are some ways that we can push. the accountability rock up the hill. And. it's going to take me a minute to kind. of lay this out, but you know what? I. think our regular viewers probably have.

Legal Breakdown law degrees by now, given that we've been talking about. legal issues every day for years. So, there is a blueprint for what happens. when the Department of Justice has a. potential conflict in something they are. obligated, not just authorized, but. obligated to investigate and, if the. evidence supports it, prosecute. It is. some kind of a special counsel. independent counsel, somebody who is not.

under the control of or under the thumb. of the Attorney General. And in this. Department of Justice, that means, by. extension, under the thumb of Donald. Trump. But the problem there is, we used. to have an old independent counsel. statute, which has lapsed, and it put. the independence in independent counsel. Now, we We the special counsel statute. and procedures, and that really does.

keep control of pretty much everything, all of the big ticket decisions in the. Attorney General herself. So, so what. would happen? So, here is one of the. many reasons the midterms are so damn. important and that we need to get out in. numbers too big to rig and too real to. steal so we can flip the house because. once it's in democratic control, here's. what I I see as a blueprint for. accountability for Pam Bondi's lying to. Congress. Um, the uh the Democrats in control of.

the House and the various committees of. the House can vote to hold her in. contempt for doing what? Lying to. Congress. Why do I say she lied to. Congress? She said flat out in her uh. congressional testimony, "There's no evidence in the Epstein. files that Donald Trump committed any. crime." That is arguably a lie, and we. know because we've seen the documents. with our own eyes where a teenage girl.

has accused Donald Trump of criminal. conduct. So, she lied to Congress. If. she had qualified it or hedged her bets. or said, "Well, there's no credible. evidence." She didn't. She said, "There's no evidence that Donald Trump. uh committed a crime." So, Congress can. actually vote to hold her in contempt. for lying to Congress. Lying to Congress. is a a violation of a federal statute. called 18 United States Code 1001 false.

statements to Congress. Think perjury. It's a variation on perjury, but here is. the other thing. She also potentially. committed the crime when she lied to. Congress of obstructing a congressional. proceeding. Think about obstructing. justice, obstructing a congressional. investigation. Interestingly, we have a. couple of parallels to turn to for. support for this process. One, Roger. Stone. Roger Stone went before a. congressional committee and did what? He.

lied. What did they do? Now, he lied. because he was trying to cover up the. wrongdoing of Donald Trump. He was. criminally charged with lying to. Congress, a 1001 violation, and with. obstructing a congressional proceeding. or investigation, and he was convicted. of those felony counts. So, there is one example where a lie to. Congress has resulted in these two. criminal charges that actually ended up. in guilty verdicts. And then what did we.

have in the more recent past? We had. James Comey. James Comey was alleged to. have lied to Congress, though there is. no credible evidence that he did. This. was Donald Trump's weaponization tour. where he was bringing baseless. vindictive indictments against his. perceived enemies, but be that as it. may, there was an indictment that charged. James Comey with lying to Congress, and. what was the second count? Obstructing a. congressional proceeding based on that.

lie. So, we've got the blueprint here to. to charge Pam Bondi with those two. crimes for her inarguable lie to. Congress. But what happens when the the. Congress votes to hold her in contempt. and makes a criminal referral. recommending those two charges to the. Department of Justice for criminal. investigation. That's where things tend. to get a little bit dicey because is Pam. Bondi going to order an investigation be.

commenced into her own crimes? No. Is. Pam Bondi going to take advantage of the. procedures available to her to appoint a. special counsel to investigate her. alleged crimes? Probably not unless she. wants to staff it up with somebody like, you know, I don't know, uh. Don Jr. Maybe make him special. >> to have a special counsel, right? >> Special counsel Matt Gaetz. I'm sure. that's going to be. >> Yeah, I tried to think of some of the. least credible people that I could come. up with. Um, so, you know, I don't think.

that that would sell either if she tried. to do that. So, my guess is she would. pretend to have some other component in. the Department of Justice that she says, "I will have no interaction with them. It'll We'll put up a firewall between. the AG's office and this component and. they can take an honest look at this. criminal referral from uh, from. Congress. And of course, that component. would say, "No, no, no, we don't think.

she did anything wrong. She's done. everything right because, you know, she. supported Donald Trump's agenda." So, that's where things get I think can get. bogged down. But But I do think there is. another option potentially available and. this might be a little bit of a maiden. voyage, but you know what? You can't. make precedent if you don't do something. for the first time. So, I think if you have this kind of. uncurable problem with the mechanisms. that we have available when there's a a.

conflict that DOJ is put into, we can go. to the court. Congress can go to the. court. Congress has filed suit, you. know, not infrequently, particularly. during the Trump years to try to enforce. its own subpoenas, for example, to try. to get Donald Trump's prior White House. counsel to testify. So, you know, Congress knows how to go to court and. assert its rights. They can file suit in. court. They can petition the court to. appoint its own special prosecutor. Now,

there is some precedent for courts to be. able to appoint a special prosecutor in. certain circumstances, like if a court. order is violated by let's say the. Department of Justice and the Department. of Justice refuses to pursue a a. criminal investigation or prosecution. based on that violation of the court. order, the court can appoint an. independent prosecutor to vindicate its. own rights because in a very real sense.

the court is the victim when a. government official violates a court. order. You know, Congress could file. with the court a request that they. replicate that process because DOJ is is. is hopelessly conflicted out of making. this kind of a determination. And. listen, the judge can say yes, the judge. can say no. Um of course if the judge says yes, it. will go up on appeal and it will be one. of those those maiden legal voyages that.

prosecutors sometimes take when it is. the right and righteous thing to do. I'm. not going to tell a war story, Brian, but I had a couple of instances in my 30. years as a prosecutor when I did. something that was without precedent, but it was the right thing to do, it was. a righteous thing to do, but there was. no case law governing the unique. circumstances of the crime that I was. involved in investigating and. prosecuting, and guess what? We actually.

made case law. We created precedent. because we won in the trial court and. then the court of appeals said, "This. looks like it is the right thing to do. for the right reasons, it's lawful, it's. constitutional, and even though it's. never been done before, we're going to. do it." They sanctioned it and we. created law. That, I think, is an. opportunity. um for a pathway to holding Pam Bondi. accountable for her crimes. Well, the. interesting thing is it sounds like all.

of this would be litigated in the DC. court system, and so far as far as I. know, I mean, we've done God knows how. many legal breakdown episodes about. cases that were litigated in that court. system, and they usually don't go in. Trump's way. This is like the the Judge. Boasberg court system. We've seen Judge. Chutkan, Tanya Chutkan, is in the DC. court system. And so, you know, look, this isn't like the Uber. conservative 11th Circuit Court of. Appeals. This is This is a court system. that very much upholds the law as.

opposed to acting in deference to this. administration. Is that correct? Very. much so. Even the judges who were. appointed by Republican presidents, the. Judge Leon's, who, you know, just. completely smacked down Pete Hegseth. when he tried to bust uh Senator Kelly. down in rank and steal some of his. retirement pay. Um and we've got Judge. Beryl Howell, who was the chief judge of. DC Federal District Court before Judge. Boasberg. And what did she do? She. presided over some of the early Trump.

litigation and the the challenges to the. grand jury procedures. And she held. strong. And all of these judges, even. Karl Nichols, who is a Trump appointee, has held strong in Trump litigation, including the unconstitutional conduct. of ICE. All of these are instances where. the judges really divorce politics from. the legal question they're required to. decide. And because the facts, the law, and the Constitution cut against Donald.

Trump, they rule against the Trump. administration time and time and time. again. I will say we have a couple of. outliers on the DC Federal Circuit Court. of Appeals who have ruled in Trump's. favor, only to be overruled by the. majority of judges when the case was. reconsidered on bonk, full court with. all appellate court judges. But you're. absolutely right in your observation. that not only the DC Federal Circuit, but I would say the federal circuits. from coast to coast have been holding.

strong and ruling against Donald Trump, not based on politics, based on the law, the facts, and the Constitution. And. finally, Glenn, here is the big. question. Is it worth it to begin. litigation or launch investigations, whatever, try to get the courts to to to. um act against Pam Bondi while she's in. office, or would it be more beneficial. to wait until she's out of office and. use this opportunity to continue. building the case? After all, she is. still in the midst of what we would.

consider this crime. I mean, she is in. the midst of covering up the Epstein. files. It it We you know, we've spoken. about the fact that the statute of. limitations for most crimes is 5 years. We are still watching a crime play out. if we consider the the the suppression. of the Epstein files in violation of the. plain text of law. These things were. supposed to be released December 19th, 2025. This is still happening every. single day, and so the clock hasn't even. started for this stuff. So, I guess. going back to the question, is it worth. it to start this process now and butt up.

against a sitting Attorney General at. the DOJ, or is it worth it to use this. time to continue building the case, and. then when you have an easier glide path. to go ahead and do this? Yeah, great. question. So, I'm going to quote an. artist who has created a print that I. refer to in the days of Trump early and. often. When I'm asked the question, you. know, is the time right to begin this. quest for accountability? The artist is. Peter Tunney, and he has this beautiful. print, and it says, "The time is always.

now." And that is how I feel about. accountability. But, listen, right now. the Republicans control the House. So, we're not going to get votes to hold her. in contempt. We're not going to get. criminal referrals to the Department of. Justice until the Dems take control of. the House. That will be one opportunity, one moment in time for us to begin to. move forward. Because, Brian, you just. made made excellent point. You said, "The crime is ongoing." I'm not talking. about lying to Congress, although when.

she testifies again, I suspect we may. hear some more lies, but the crime of. the cover-up, of the refusal to release. the Epstein files, all of which had to. be revealed publicly um by federal law. on December 19. We've blown by that, you. know, almost 3 months now, and the crime. is ongoing. So, when it comes to. beginning the fight for accountability. and holding Pam Bondi accountable for. what she's doing, the time is always.

now. The time is always right. The. practicalities of it, the first salvo in. accountability will probably come when. the Dems take control of the House and. for that 2 years, assuming she doesn't, you know, get fired or resign, for that. 2 years that Donald Trump is still in. office or the Republicans still have a. president in the White House, um. the Dems are only going to be able to do. so much because they're not going to. have. uh a a legitimate Attorney General to.

actually enforce the laws of the nation. So, that's where we try to take this. maiden legal voyage and get a Pam Bondi. criminal referral from the DOJ into the. courts. Hopefully, then, once we have a. Democrat in the White House or I'm not. going to wish for this, but even a. Republican who cares about the rule of. law and the Constitution, that is when. criminal accountability proper will. come. And you said the magic words, statute of limitations. Pam Bondi's lie. to Congress will still be a chargeable.

offense when the new president is sworn. in, takes the oath of office, there will. still be time on the statute of. limitations. That will be when the. runway is completely clear to bring. criminal charges against Pam Bondi. All. right. Well, obviously something to. consider. as we move forward in this process as. midterms uh to inch closer and closer. So, for those who are watching right. now, if you'd like to stay on top of. more legal analysis and more legal news, the best way to do that 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. It's. completely free to subscribe, but it's a. great way to support our work. So, 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.