Trump official CAUGHT in new Epstein SCANDAL

I'm joined now by Congressman Ro Khanna. Congressman, there was a hearing today, a private hearing today with Howard. Lutnick who's in Trump's administration. Can you explain what the point of that. hearing was first and foremost and. anything remarkable that came out of it? Well, there turned out to be no point to. it because Howard Lutnick basically lied. throughout the deposition. No one. who has come before our committee, in my. view, has lied more. He was supposed to be forthcoming. He. was supposed to tell us what he knew.

about Epstein. He was supposed to. explain why he had told the American. people that he never met Epstein. when it came out that he had taken his. family to the island on in 2012. And the. reality is. he. basically lied. He said that. when he told the American people that he. would never meet Epstein after 2005, he. meant just himself. He wasn't talking. about going and meeting him with his.

family. I mean, can you imagine that? That he thought it was too disgusting to. meet him himself, but he was fine to. have his wife and kids that go with him. And then what was most shocking is I. asked him, "Well, you know, you said that Epstein was. blackmailing people. You said that he. was recording massages." And he says, "I. was just speculating." I said, "Okay, what did you base that speculation on?". "No, I was just speculating on a. podcast." And then he says, "Now I don't. believe it anymore." I say, "Why?". Because he said, "I now have consulted. with the Trump administration.

and I don't believe it anymore. I don't. think he. engaged in blackmailing." So, it was a. cover-up. It was a lies. You know, Donald Trump would fire him on. the spot if he saw that video. Should. Howard Lutnick resign from his position? Yes. The fact that he's not resigning. is such an indictment of our nation. You. know, here you've had the former Prince. Andrew be prosecuted. You have Lord. Mendelsohn in Britain be prosecuted. It. It's literally bringing down Norwegian. royalty. You have business leaders in.

France being prosecuted. And here you. have a sitting cabinet member who's lied. about his involvement with Epstein, who. is uh. lying about whether Epstein blackmailed. or not in his contact with uh Epstein, who is basically, if you saw the. interview, if it was videotaped, you. could tell he was sweating, he was. mumbling, uh he was nervous, uh and he's still in the cabinet. It. says that we're taking no accountability. >> for what I call the Epstein class. People were caught up with this person. and uh excused his behavior. I'm not.

saying that Howard Lutnick was involved. in any way in raping or abusing young. girls. I don't believe that based on the. evidence, but I do believe that he knew. much more about what Epstein was doing. and he's covering up. Was that hearing um under oath? I'm. assuming the answer to that is no. And. uh and if not, is there a situation. where he could be called back to. testify, given that you think he was. lying during during um during this. afternoon's uh hearing, and uh and. actually get him under oath so that.

there are some some some uh consequences. if he decides to lie again? Well, there are consequences with a. transcribed interview, uh not under. oath, but lying to Congress is a crime, even under a transcribed interview. So, uh a future administration could. certainly look to to to whether he. perjured himself. Uh and uh he's put it. out there where more things come out. that it very well could be evidence of. of of perjury. Uh we should call him. again to to testify to the American.

people because uh his answers are so uh. unbelievable. Look, if he had come out. and he said, "I said that uh I never met Epstein. after 2005. I was wrong. We did have. this trip. I was embarrassed to disclose. it. That's the truth. I didn't want to. subject my family uh to that disclosure, and I regret it. I should have been more. transparent." You know, I would have. honestly come out and said, "Okay, he. was introspective, he understood he. messed up." But for him to be lying so. blatantly saying, "No, I I I didn't mean.

that my family couldn't meet Epstein. I. was just talking about myself being in a. room." For him to be saying that. "No, I didn't mean that Epstein was. blackmailing people, that Epstein was. video recording people." It's just a. cover-up. And this is what infuriates. folks. People who are powerful covering. up for other richer powerful men. And. the victims, the survivors are the ones. who are treated as dispensable. Two. tiers of justice in America. Can you. talk about the difference here between. why Howard Lutnick was given.

a closed-door deposition versus a public. hearing? Yes, the Republicans are in power. They. want to embarrass the Clintons and they. don't want to embarrass Ira Lutnick. This is not some law school class or any. rational reason why one person was. treated differently. This was the. Republican majority protecting the. president's cabinet member. There is. absolutely zero reason this should not. have been videotaped. And now I'm sure.

Comer thinks that was a great decision. cuz I I guarantee you, Brian, you. weren't in the room, but you can ask any. others who were if the American people. had seen that interview, Lutnick would have been done. By the end. of today he would have been done. Would you be willing to commit to if. Democrats are able to retake the House. in midterms this year that not just. Howard Lutnick, but any of these other. folks who were involved with Epstein in. any way could be called to testify. publicly? Yes, because this is a. personal cause for me. I I get texts.

from survivors every other day. I This. has become so personal to me to see. these women go through what they have. for decades, to see them treated as. totally dispensable, and then to see. powerful men lying, having no remorse, no introspection. I'm not going to let that stand. And I. know some people say move on, just talk. about Iran, just talk about gas prices, but you can't do that when you've met. the survivors, when you've seen their. trauma, when you have people at airports. come up to you and say, let me tell you. about the trauma in my life when I was.

abused. So I'm 100% committed to calling. Epstein, I mean Elect Nick and others. And I know Robert Garcia, our great. ranking member, has the same passion. Congressman, there seems to be like an impasse here. because we have 3 million files that. still haven't been released. Todd Blanche has basically made it clear. with Pam Bondi's departure that what. went with it was any hope of having. those 3 million files released. And so.

where do we go from here where they. continue to be in violation of the. Epstein Files Transparency Act, which. you co-sponsored co-authored with Thomas. Massie. And there just doesn't seem to. be any movement or urgency or desire to. abide by by. the law, you know, as it as it relates. to those other three 3 million files. Look, great. People used to ask me, is. this going to have to wait till 2029. when we had a Democratic president? I. used to say no, I think we're going to. get there before that. But at this point. it's going to require a Democratic. Congress, it's going to require.

Democratic Senate, and ultimately a. Democratic president to get justice, the. true justice. But we're not going to. give up now. We're going to push for. more people like Bill Gates coming, other people who visited the island. coming. Pam Bondi is coming to the committee. You do have a group of Republicans who. I've worked with, Nancy Mace, Anna Luna. Anna Luna, and others who are committed. to at least getting more transparency. And we're going to fight inch by inch. until more files come out and until. people are held accountable. But I can. tell you this, on day one a new.

president is going to have to commit to. meeting with the survivors' lawyers, opening up investigations, releasing the. rest of the files. And on day one when we have the. Oversight Committee, we need to be. I I think having an Epstein select. committee where we just have a reckoning. in this country with that Epstein class. And would you be willing to chair that. committee if you were asked? Well, I I'm. happy to do it in a bipartisan way, way, but there are a lot of good people. I. mean, I I actually think that it may be. good to have some of the the women who.

have really been front and center for. survivors, Summer Lee, Ayanna Pressley, they also get an opportunity take the. lead. Yes, Massie and I passed the law, but this is beyond Massie and me, and I. think maybe a bipartisan committee with. one of the great women leaders, Summer Lee, who got the subpoena passed. in the oversight committee, she would be. perfect. And last question here, in terms of the prospect of another or.

another iteration of the Epstein Files. Transparency Act, one with teeth against. a DOJ or an administration that seeks to. to violate it, is that still in the. works? What are you thinking about that? Well, one Katie Phang, I don't know if. you saw, brought a lawsuit that's very. compelling. It says that under the. Administrative Procedures Act, the. Justice Department is required to give. the files. The Administrative Procedure. Act says that an agency cannot do things. in violation of the law that harm the. public, and one of those things is. not being transparent. So, you may have.

the files be released under that theory. of the case. Of course, you can bring. obstruction of justice and survivors can. Look, I wish Massie and I had included a. private cause of action, but the reason. we didn't is the numbers weren't there. You know the Republican attitude towards. trial lawyers and plaintiffs lawyers. I. like them. I I believe they're critical. to taking on corporate power. We just. wouldn't have gotten it passed. So, if. we can do it now, I'm open to it, but. again, it runs into the dilemma of how. do you get the Republicans on board?

Well, I appreciate you taking the time. today, and thanks so much for the work. that you continue to do on this topic, Congressman. >> Thank you, Brian. >> [music].