[0:00]that we are going to then cross live now and listen to uh the questioning of Pam Bondi which is just getting underway Charlene Rashard and Lisa Phillips. Now
[0:10]you're not showing a lot of interest in the victims madam attorney general whether it's Epstein's human trafficking ring or the homicidal governmental violence against citizens in
[0:20]Minneapolis. As attorney general, you're siding with the perpetrators and you're ignoring the victims. That will be your legacy unless you act quickly to change
[0:32]course. You're running a massive Epstein cover up right out of the Department of Justice. You've been ordered by subpoena and by Congress to turn over 6 million
[0:42]documents, photographs, and videos in the Epstein files, but you've turned over only three million. You say you're not turning over the other three million because they're somehow duplicative, but
[0:53]we know that there are actual memos of victim statements in there. And you also took down the Department of Justice's prosecution memo from 2019. So, it's
[1:04]clearly not all duplicative, but even if it were, why not release it? Just release all the duplicative stuff. In the half you did produce, you redacted
[1:14]the names of abusers, enablers, accompllices, and co-conspirators, apparently to spare them embarrassment and disgrace, which is the exact
[1:23]opposite of what the law ordered you to do. Even worse, you shockingly failed to redact many of the victim's names, which is what you were ordered to do by
[1:35]Congress. Some of the victims had come forward publicly, but many had not. Many had kept their torment private, even from family and friends. But you
[1:46]published their names, their identities, their images on thousands of pages for the world to see. So you ignored the
[1:56]law. And even with over a 100,000 employees at your disposal, you acted with some mixture of staggering incompetence, cold indifference, and
[2:07]jaded cruelty towards more than 1,000 victims raped, abused, and trafficked. This performance screams cover up.
[2:18]Convicted sex trafficker and groomer Gla Maxwell opened the gates of hell to Virginia Drew Freay and hundreds of other victims. as Virginia recorded in
[2:28]her remarkable book, Nobody's Girl. But when Maxwell was subpoenaed to come testify before Congress, you and Todd Blanch quickly moved her from a higher
[2:38]security prison to a minimum security camp in Texas, where she's enjoyed five-star treatment, including catered meals, private gym time, and access to a
[2:50]therapy puppy. All because Todd Blanch, who's utterly failed to investigate the monstrous crimes of Epstein and Maxwell's co-conspirators, spent nine
[2:59]hours with Maxwell and satisfied himself that she would have nothing unourred to say about Donald Trump, which is your only real interest in the matter based
[3:10]on institutional performance. But abandoning victims and coddling perpetrators is what you do best when the FBI opened a criminal investigation into the brutal killing in Minneapolis
[3:22]of Renee Good, a poet and 37year-old mother of three by Trump's masked paramilitary ICE agents. You shut it down. You claim you're investigating the
[3:32]cold-blooded murder of Alex Prey, an ICU nurse at the VA. But how can we trust the administration when the president and Christy Gnome call Freddy a domestic
[3:41]terrorist and Steven Miller called him a would-be assassin? Not only do you refuse to share evidence with the state and local investigators and prosecutors in Minnesota, you have blocked their
[3:53]access to the crime scene and the evidence. How are you seeking justice for Marimar Martinez, the Monasuri school teacher in Chicago who was shot
[4:02]five times by a border patrol agent who bragged about it on text. Or the family of Keith Porter, a father of two shot and killed by an offduty ICE agent in
[4:12]LA. Or the family of Sylio Vieas Gonzalez shot and killed in Illinois minutes after he dropped his kids off at school. There's no sign of any movement
[4:23]at the Department of Justice. You even launched a criminal investigation into Renee Good's grieving widow. How sick is that? But it's even worse. You've turned
[4:33]the People's Department of Justice into Trump's instrument of revenge. Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza and you deliver every time. He tells you to
[4:43]go after James Comey, Leticia James, Lisa Cook, and Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve Board, and members of Congress like Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, Alyssa Slotkin, Chrissy
[4:54]Hulahan, Jason Crowe, Chris Duzio, and Maggie Goodlander to name a few, and you snap to it. You replace real prosecutors
[5:03]with counterfeit stooges who robotically do the president's bidding. Nothing in American history comes close to this complete corruption of the justice
[5:13]function and contamination of federal law enforcement. The good news is many serious lawyers at DOJ, including some of your own original employees, have
[5:22]refused your lawless orders. Danielle Sassoon, your original pick for acting US attorney in Manhattan, resigned rather than follow your corrupt order to
[5:33]quash an indictment against Mayor Eric Adams as a political favor from Donald Trump. A Federalist Society member who clerked for Justice Scalia, US Attorney
[5:42]refused to participate in this blatantly corrupt scheme. Her top assistant, Hagen Scottton, an Iraqi war vet and two-time Bronze Star recipient who clerked for Chief Justice Roberts. And then Judge
[5:54]Kavanaaugh, promptly resigned, too, writing to your office, quote, "I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward
[6:04]to file your motion, but it was never going to be me." You and the president nominated Eric Sebert, a 15-year career prosecutor, to be your US attorney for
[6:14]the Eastern District of Virginia. But after five months of investigating Leticia James and James Comey, he found no evidence to justify criminal charges.
[6:26]So you forced him out. You replaced him with Lindseay Halligan, Trump's personal lawyer from the Mara Lago documents case, who had zero prosecutorial experience and no qualifications. And
[6:37]then you were humiliated when a federal judge found that this corrupt appointment was blatantly unlawful and threw out Halligan's indictments entirely. And grand juries of American
[6:47]citizens have repeatedly rejected your vendettas and baseless indictments brought by the hacks left at DOJ. Now with two different grand juries in Virginia voting down indictments against
[6:57]Leticia James in a single week. And just yesterday, another grand jury shut down your vendetta factory by rejecting indictments against the six members of
[7:07]Congress who had spoken out to remind all service members that they have a duty to refuse illegal orders. You tried to get a grand jury to indict six members of Congress who were veterans of
[7:19]our armed forces on charges of sedicious conspiracy simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. I hope you will heed the wisdom and the constitutional
[7:28]patriotism of those grand jurors and not try it again by doubling down on that humiliation as your best lawyers are sacked for having participated in the January 6 case or just flee for the
[7:40]exits now your new lawyers keep lying in court in dozens of cases they've been excoriated for lying to federal judges. Chief Judge Boseberg right here in DC
[7:50]suggested your department of justice perpetrated a fraud on the court. Other judges found your statements to be quote inexplicably misleading, patently
[8:00]incredible, totally inconsistent, and so disingenuous that the court is left with little confidence that the government can be trusted to tell the truth about
[8:10]anything. Now, as ranking ch ranking member, uh I ask the chairman to add a few extra rounds of questions today because we each have five hours of questions, not five minutes, but we're
[8:22]stuck with five minutes. That's clearly insufficient to give voice to America's victims and survivors and to demand answers about all the corruption and cover-ups that we see at DOJ right now.
[8:33]We've got just one round. So, we ask you politely but firmly, Madam Attorney General, please do not waste one second of our precious time by evading
[8:43]questions, by changing the subject or engaging in personal attacks against members of Congress. We saw your performance in the Senate and we're not going to accept that. This isn't a game.
[8:54]In the Senate, you brought something with you called a burn book, a binder of smears to attack members personally for doing the people's work of oversight. Please set the burn book aside and
[9:05]answer our questions. And when you hear us reclaim our time, that means it's time for you to stop speaking. We only have 5 minutes, so when we reclaim our time, that means you stop. And if you
[9:16]don't, we will ask the chair to stop the clock and let you go on his time. The quality of justice in America depends on the character of our government. Please do your job and bring the Department of
[9:28]Justice back from the brink. The survivors seated behind you and the American people watching everywhere deserve a Department of Justice worthy of its name. I yield back, Mr. Chair. >> Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the
[9:39]record. We will now introduce today's witness. The Honorable Pamela J. Bondi has served as the attorney general of the United States since February 5th, 2025. She previously served in the office of the White House counsel, two
[9:50]terms as the Florida Attorney General, and spent more than 18 years as a prosecutor. We welcome our witness and thank her for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
[10:02]>> Yes. >> Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? So, help you God. >> I do.
[10:13]>> Let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You can be seated and please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirely entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
[10:23]summarize uh your testimony. Madame Attorney General, you may begin. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Rascin, and distinguished members
[10:34]of this committee. Thank you for hosting me here today. I'm grateful for the opportunity to answer your questions, highlight the work of our department, and discuss the most important topic of
[10:45]all, keeping the American people safe. A little over a year ago, I was sworn into office as 87th Attorney General of the United States. I came into office with a
[10:56]goal of refocusing the Department of Justice on its core mission after years of bloated bureaucracy and political weaponization.
[11:05]The Department of Justice's core mission is to fight violent crime, protect the American people, and defend the rule of
[11:15]law above all else. While our work is never done, we have made tremendous progress to make America safe again. In
[11:24]2025, we saw the lowest murder rate in 125 years. That's nothing short of historic.
[11:34]If you compare 25 to 24, here's what you'll find. The murder rate is down 21%. Robbery down 23%. Carjacking down 43%.
[11:45]Gun assault down 22%. A assault, burglary could go on and on. Crime is declining. This did not happen by accident. The
[11:56]numbers tell an important yet straightforward story. President Trump has given us the resources, the support, and the leadership to protect the
[12:07]American people. President Trump's policies have saved lives. I cannot think of a policy outcome more important than protecting the lives of
[12:18]American citizens. Can you? This trend has been especially clear in Washington DC and in Memphis. These are two iconic
[12:28]American cities that spent years in the grip of horrific violent crime. The Department of Justice surged law enforcement resources and the results
[12:40]came quickly. Crime plummeted in both cities. And I want to make one point loud and clear. We achieved those
[12:49]results by working with Democratic mayors. Public safety does not have a party registration. When
[12:59]your constituents call 911, they don't ask for political views of the responding officer. They ask for help. I have federal agents in each and every
[13:10]one of your districts. They're here to help. And I am here to help. Many cities and states have worked with us and taken advantage of our federal
[13:21]support. Some have not. Meanwhile, a few elected officials have declared that they are quote at war with the federal government and encouraged widespread
[13:31]obstruction of law enforcement. This has resulted in avoidable clashes on the streets. As you've all seen, we've seen rioters storming a Christian
[13:42]church. Citizens and law enforcement officers have both been endangered by reckless rhetoric. We have made dozens of arrests
[13:53]in and around Minneapolis so far, and many of them could have been avoided by simple compliance with federal law. Of
[14:02]course, our efforts reach beyond our urban centers. We are striking crucial blows against terrorist organizations such as MS-13,
[14:13]TDA, the Sinaloa cartel, and Antifa. And as we sit here, I think you've seen the news this morning. The news is reporting
[14:24]that cartel drones are being shot down by our military. That's what we all should care about right now, protecting
[14:33]America as we seek to dismantle these drug trafficking networks that poison
[14:42]Americans. In 2025, our DEA agents seized more than 47 million fentanyl pills
[14:52]and more than 9,800 total kilos of fentanyl. That represents 369
[15:03]million potentially deadly doses that can kill Americans. Meanwhile, our attorneys are fighting for President Trump's agenda in
[15:15]courtrooms across this country. This administration has been sued 627 times. We fought through a non-stop flood of
[15:25]bad faith temporary restraining orders from liberal activist judges across this country. America has never seen this
[15:33]level of coordinated judicial opposition towards a presidential administration. It is not only an unlawful attack on the
[15:45]executive branch's authority, but a serious attack on the democratic process. In spite of this unprecedented judicial
[15:54]activism, we've attained 24 favorable rulings at the US Supreme Court, their emergency docket, and even more to
[16:06]come. We've done so while ending the weaponization of the prior administration by dropping Face Act prosecutions, exposing the Arctic frost scandal via
[16:17]congressional disclosure. Thank you, chairman. and restoring one tier of justice in this country.
[16:25]To address the Epstein files, more than 500 attorneys and reviewers spent thousands of hours painstakingly
[16:34]reviewing millions of pages to comply with Congress's law. We've released more than 3 million pages, including 180,000
[16:44]images, all to the public, while doing our very best in the time frame allotted by the legislation to protect victims.
[16:56]And if you brought us a victim's name that was inadvertently released, we immediately redacted it. All members of Congress, as you know, are invited to
[17:07]visit DOJ to see for yourselves. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the Epstein survivors who are here today.
[17:18]I'm a career prosecutor and despite what the ranking member said, I have spent my entire career fighting for victims and I
[17:28]will continue to do so. I am deeply sorry for what any victim any victim has been through, especially as a result of
[17:38]that monster. If you have any information to share with law enforcement about anyone who has hurt you or abused
[17:48]you, the FBI is waiting to hear from you. I want you to know that any accusations of criminal wrongdoing will be taken
[18:00]seriously and investigated. The Department of Justice is committed to holding criminals accountable to the
[18:09]fullest extent of the law. In 2025, the FBI arrested over 1,700 child predators, a 10% increase from
[18:19]2024. We also located 2700 victims of child exploitation and shut
[18:28]down 3.8 million dark web pedophile accounts. 3.8 million.
[18:38]So please, if you have information to share that needs to be investigated, contact the FBI. Today, I look forward to discussing
[18:48]further our shared obligation to protect the American people, uphold the rule of law, and keep this nation safe. Thank you.
[19:00]>> Uh thank you, Madam Attorney General. The chair now, we now presented the five-minute rule. The chair recognizes gentleman from California for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madame General, uh, thank you for your extensive
[19:11]remarks, particularly on your continued investigation of those responsible over the years in the Epstein debacle.
[19:20]Obviously, you have an amazingly full docket uh between civil rights, between criminal, between so-called white collar
[19:30]crime, and doing so, as the chairman said, at a time in which both you and the president are under attack and our ICE agents and FBI and others are under
[19:40]attack when they try to enforce the law. I personally want to apologize for those who would in in em inbolden, support or
[19:50]even uh stand with those lawb breakakers that sit on this and other deases here in Congress. My job generally is to talk about
[20:02]patents and trademarks as the uh the chairman of that subcommittee. I'll forgo that today because one of my other jobs is uh the creation and maintenance
[20:13]of article 3 judges and I work with the chief justice on that and we're trying to expand the court but currently there are only 677 district court judges. They
[20:24]have very full dockets as well but you create a tremendous amount of judges particularly immigration judges. you do
[20:34]so in order to save the court that but adjudicate as is requirement uh each of those people who claim a
[20:45]right to be here in the United States and that has been going on under Republican and Democratic administrations for years. What's unique
[20:54]about the Trump administration this time is that you and President Trump have managed to reduce the backlog of people seeking that for the first time in
[21:06]decades. You are getting ahead of that tremendous backlog that caused for better or worse the release of millions of people with little pieces of paper
[21:16]saying come back later when we call you and often to no avail when you call. So, I want to congratulate you on that because it's an accomplishment you might not take credit for and the other side
[21:26]would never give you credit for, but I hope you can continue to do that and do more. And I say so for a reason
[21:36]because much of this uh hearing will be about Minneapolis and other places in which the backlog of criminal aliens including
[21:46]in my home state of California, people who have hurt other people who people who have victimized their communities is extensive. And although the overall
[21:57]number through adjudication may be going on, because of places like my home state, California, you're unable to apprehend people that my sheriffs want
[22:08]apprehended. They desperately want to cooperate and they're prohibited by law. It is this committee's opinion on this side of the aisle that in fact you
[22:18]should be given the ability to demand that uh that participation and that the release of a known criminal not be uh considered to be acceptable just because
[22:29]a state or city has declared itself a sanctuary. I want you to opine on just one thing that I think has been misunderstood. As I said earlier, you
[22:40]create and maintain that those judges that adjudicate these cases. You also support
[22:49]uh you also support so many that in fact uh have to make decisions as judges knowing that this limitation of so few
[23:00]article 3 judges are there. Please educate those who seem to miss the point that article one judges including bankruptcy judges, including immigration
[23:11]judges, including lots of people with the title appropriately judge do in fact issue documents that look like, act like, and are normally accepted as
[23:22]warrants, as subpoenas, as demands for state officials to stand aside and allow the production of either an individual
[23:33]or documents because I think people are missing the point that these ICE retainers and detainers and so on, they act like they're nothing when in fact in
[23:42]the ordinary course. Uh Madame General, you do in fact have article one judges constantly putting those out and they are respected normally. >> Thank you, Congressman, for um for
[23:59]talking about all the the great judges. And if I could um add one thing to that, we are always recruiting and looking for judges. So please reach out to our
[24:10]office for these judges who are handling all these very important matters. We're we're we've even added some JAG um JAG officers as immigration judges. Thank
[24:20]you. And so we're continuing to do that, but we're always seeking qualified lawyers as well to be part of that. And thank thank you for highlighting that, Congressman. >> Thank I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady
[24:32]from Washington's recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Attorney General Bondi right here. Uh we are joined in this room by some of the thousands of survivors from Jeffrey
[24:44]Epstein's horrific sex trafficking ring. They have shown such incredible courage in speaking out, in demanding accountability to bring the predators
[24:55]and pedophiles to justice. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required your Department of Justice to disclose the perpetrators connected with Epstein's
[25:05]criminal activities and to redact the information of survivors to protect their identities. Let me show you what actually happened. First, in violation
[25:17]of the law, your department has shown a pattern of redacting the names of powerful predators. Here behind me is one example of an email from Epstein to
[25:28]a man whose name was redacted. The email reads, quote, "Where are you? Are you
[25:36]okay? I loved the torture video." Only after members of Congress demanded that we see the unredacted files did the
[25:46]world learn the name of this individual, Sultan Almad bin Sulam, the chairman and CEO of a company that had financial ties
[25:57]to President Trump's business and personal ties to Trump's adviser Steve Bannon. Second, the survivors were not similarly protected, also in violation
[26:08]of the law. Here is another email titled Epstein victim list. We have blurred the names of the survivors for their protection, but your Department of
[26:18]Justice initially released this list of 32 survivors names with only one name redacted along with numerous files that
[26:29]disclose not only the names, the emails, and the addresses of survivors, but also nude photographs and even the identities
[26:38]of Jane Doe's who had been protected for decades until your department released their names. Survivors are now telling us that their families are finding out
[26:49]for the first time that they were trafficked by Epstein. In their words, quote, "This release does not provide closure. It feels like a deliberate
[26:59]attempt to intimidate survivors, punish those who came forward, and reinforce the same culture of secrecy that allowed Epstein's crimes to continue for
[27:10]decades." To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise
[27:24]your hands. If you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice, please know for the record that every
[27:35]single survivor has raised their hand. Attorney General Bondi, you apologize to the survivors in your opening statement for what they went
[27:47]through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has
[27:56]put them through with the un absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their
[28:06]information. Congresswoman, you sat before
[28:16]Mer Merritt Garland sat in this chair twice. Attorney General Bond finish my answer. No, I'm going to reclaim my time because I asked you attorney specific question.
[28:27]>> Attorney General to answer which is will you turn to the survivors? This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you
[28:37]taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are
[28:48]waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice is. >> Members members get to ask the questions. The witness gets to answer in the way they want to answer that attorney general.
[28:59]>> That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman. >> Because she doesn't like the answer. So, um, >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have asked and she asked Merritt Garland this time.
[29:09]>> I am reclaiming my time in my time. Mr. >> The gentle lady get in the gutter for her theatrics. >> The time belongs to the time belongs to the gentle lady. The gentle lady has 17
[29:20]seconds. >> Thank you. >> You're not going to answer this question. So, let me just I'll direct it to >> What a massive No, I'm answering a question. >> Will you restore her time? The witnesses
[29:30]interrupting better with this woman who's doing theatric. >> Let me have my >> gentle lady. The gentle lady from Washington controls the time. The gentle lady has 17 seconds. You can you can uh proceed with your final 17 seconds.
[29:41]>> What a massive cover up this has been and continues to be. Donald Trump made the release of the Epstein files the center of his political campaign because he thought it would benefit him. Then
[29:52]you got into office attorney general, claimed to have a client list only and say that there was no list. Your deputy Todd Blanch met alone
[30:03]Maxwell time of the gentle lady has expired to a minimum security prison and now you continue the cover up that you would turn around to the
[30:13]survivors who are standing right behind you and on a human level now recognizes the chair for what you have done. >> Time is time of the gentle lady. The gentle lady you have no time to yield
[30:25]back. We appreciate that. We appreciate the thought. Um the um and I would argue the central issue in the last election, the presidential election was securing the border. The gentleman from Arizona who knows something about securing the
[30:36]border is up for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Attorney General Bondi, for being here today. In in 2022, Lafarge, which is a French cement company, plead guilty in
[30:48]US federal court to participating in a criminal conspiracy with ISIS. That conspiracy contributed to the deaths of US service members fighting in Syria
[30:58]during Operation Inherent Resolve. As part of the plea agreement, Lafarge was required to pay more than $775 million to DOJ's asset forfeiture fund. In
[31:09]February 2025, my colleagues and I sent you a letter urging the department to review the petitions for remission submitted uh by the families of those fallen service members, including several of my constituents. The previous
[31:21]administration ignored these victims and our requests and left their petitions unresolved. My question for you on this particular issue is if you're willing to work to ensure those families that their
[31:31]petitions will be remove, excuse me, reviewed and brought to a resolution. >> Congressman, we are aware of that and we're committed to doing everything we can to support the victims and work with
[31:43]you. Thank you for that question. >> Yeah, I appreciate your answer. And now let's go to something that is also pressing that I've been working on for years and this is the FISA section 702
[31:53]and and Arctic Frost. In January 2025, you testified before the US Senate and agreed with Senator Lee that quote, "Anytime an American citizen's private communications are intercepted or
[32:04]stored, whether through incidental collection, otherwise those communications should not be searched without some showing of probable cause." Close quote. You you still have hold
[32:13]that view today, I assume. Yes. >> And um during the most recent FISA reauthorization, I offered an amendment to establish a clear warrant requirement
[32:23]for searches of Americans data while preserving every publicly cited operational exception, including emergencies, defensive queries, cyber security threats, and my intent was to
[32:35]ensure the Department of Justice could continue to keep Americans safe while also ending warrantless searches of US persons data. Are there any additional circumstances or exceptions that you
[32:45]believe must be included to ensure DOJ can continue to operate effectively while still uh protecting American citizens data and privacy?
[32:55]>> Yeah, Congressman, we are committed to working with Congress to uncover weaponization and other misconduct by Jacksmith, by others, Arctic Frost,
[33:05]everything that happened under the past administration. And um we are committed to working with you on that and we are
[33:14]working with Chairman Jordan, with the House Intel, with all of our uh my fellow cabinet members on resolving that issue. >> Well, thank you. And I'm glad you
[33:25]brought up Arctic Frost because section 702 was used in the Arctic Frost investigation. >> It was. >> And uh information derived was used by
[33:36]special counsel Jack Smith. Um, and my question has always been, and no one's been able to answer this, is what was the legal predicate for using a foreign intelligence authority in the Arctic
[33:47]Frost investigation? Have you been able to ascertain any legal predicate, >> Congressman? What I can tell you today
[33:56]is that has been referred to my office. I can't discuss anything regarding that because it is very active and ongoing. And you probably can't answer this one
[34:07]either, but I I really want to know if section 702 queries related to that matter involved members of Congress, which we know and some level it did. Uh congressional staff, which we know at some level did. We've heard that
[34:18]journalists or other US persons not suspecting of acting as foreign agents were also caught up in that. Can you answer that question and say whether queries uh did cover all those those
[34:29]groups I just identified? It is a very active pending investigation within my office. However, I believe many members of Congress have
[34:40]stated that their phones were um were part of Arctic Frost. We are well aware of that and we are taking this very
[34:50]seriously and this is a very active investigation. And I would keep going and say if any member of of the Democrat party, if any of them, if that had happened to them, we would take that
[35:01]just as serious as we do, and they should be jumping up and down, screaming, supporting you and what you want to do because this should be a
[35:12]bipartisan issue. >> Well, I hope it is a bipartisan issue. Um and uh you know I'll just leave with these last couple of questions which I I'm sure fall into the same
[35:23]investigation privilege but that's this how many such queries were actually conducted overall this is outside artic frost in the prior year by by the FBI or other
[35:34]intelligence community and particularly we really need to know what were what were the legal standards applied did they use probable cause did they use reasonable articulable suspicion or did they have no individualized susp
[35:45]suspicion and just we're gathering up information uh and and that's that's beyond the the investigation regarding Arctic frost. I don't expect you to have that information today, but if you can
[35:56]uh help get that information so we can understand the extensive nature of this continued misuse of 702, it would be very particularly helpful.
[36:06]>> And it was extensive. Yes, Congressman, thank you. >> Time of the gentleman has expired. >> I have a UC, Mr. chairman >> and that is the gentle from Texas. >> I ask unanimous consent to enter into
[36:17]the record El Paso airspace reopened after FAA quickly rescends 10day flights restriction. This was published by the Texas Tribune on February 11th, 2026 and
[36:28]it says it was because of an impass with the DoD over the use of unary aircraft and not triggered by Mexican cartel drones. >> Without objection.
[36:38]>> Uh point of order, Mr. Chairman, uh I didn't hear back about the second round of questions. I assume that's not happening. I just want to be able to assure uh the members certainly on my side if not both sides. >> That's not a point of
[36:49]>> No, that that that every member will get five minutes with the uh witness. Will there be five minutes for each? >> Yeah, you'll get five minutes. Yeah. >> With the witness. Okay. Very good.
[36:58]>> Yeah. Okay. And are you up next? Gentleman from New York is recognized. >> Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors of Jeffrey
[37:09]Epste's horrific abuse who are in the room with us today. I want to thank all of you for your bravery of speaking out. I want to say that you and the other survivors of these heinous crimes
[37:20]deserve better from this Department of Justice. In particular, it is shocking that the department did not redact the names of Epstein's victims, but it did
[37:29]redact the names of their abusers. I don't know whether this was done out of incompetence or whether it was deliberate and malicious, but either way, it is completely unacceptable. Even
[37:40]more troubling, the DOJ has failed to bring any of these perpetrators to justice. Instead, it has engaged in a relentless pursuit of Donald Trump's perceived enemies. I want to focus on
[37:52]just one example. The attorney general of my home state of New York, Tish James. This DOJ has been hellbent on securing an indictment against Miss James for something, anything, simply
[38:03]because she held Donald Trump's companies accountable for years of financial fraud. And indeed, the department manufactured an investigation against her for alleged quote mortgage
[38:14]fraud. But the US attorney leading the investigation, Eric Sbert, a Trump appointee, refused to bring charges against Miss James because there was
[38:23]simply no evidence. Unfortunately, a prosecutor who refuses to do Trump's bidding has no place in this DOJ. So, Mr. Sbert was forced out. Trump could
[38:35]not contain his fury. Fury that he expressed to you in a social media post addressed to you by name. I'm sure you've seen it. Quote, "I fired him and there is a great case he wrote to you
[38:46]about Mr. Sebert. Then we move down. We can't delay any longer. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five
[38:55]times over nothing. Justice must be served now. And obviously you followed that order. Lindseay Halligan, Trump's former defense lawyer, who had never pro
[39:06]prosecuted the case in her life, was installed to replace Mr. Sibert, and it was clear that part of her mandate was to go after Miss James. Hallagan immediately sought an indictment, which
[39:17]the court dismissed because Halligan was illegally put into the role. But your department was undeterred and not once but twice it tried to indict Attorney
[39:26]General James in separate courts. Both grand juries rejected you and refused to indict her. It is practically unheard of for a grand jury to refuse an
[39:35]indictment. In 2016, it happened in just six cases out of over 150,000 offenses. And you had it happen twice in the same
[39:46]week in two different courts. That must have been humiliating. And now there are reports you are continuing to investigate her. The amount of resources that have gone into targeting Attorney
[39:56]General James, months of investigations, multiple failed indictments is astounding. Since your own prosecutors told you that there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, it's
[40:07]clear that you are going after her simply because she held President Trump accountable and he wants to punish her. And she is just one name on a long list of Trump political enemies that DOJ is
[40:19]reportedly targeting. From Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve to James Comey, numerous Democratic members of Congress, John Brennan, Jack Smith, Democratic officials of Minnesota, Chris
[40:31]Krebs, Mile Taylor, and more. And those are just the ones we know about. In contrast to these politically motivated investigations grasping at something they can charge their enemies with, we
[40:42]now have concrete evidence of disgusting criminality revealed in the Epstein files. So I have just so I really have just one question for you. How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you
[40:53]indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating? First,
[41:05]>> you showed it. You I I find it. >> How many have you >> Excuse me. I'm gonna answer the question. >> I answer my question. >> No, I'm gonna answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrics are the question the way I asked it.
[41:16]>> Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people, but I'm going to answer the question. >> How many of you indicted again? The time belongsing my time. >> The time belongs. >> I think it's verying my time.
[41:26]>> I think it's very interesting. And you can he talks about they indicted. President said they indicted him. >> Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock and stop the clock and restore his time.
[41:37]Committ from New York. We will give you a few more seconds. We will do that. But when you ask a question, the witness gets to answer. You may not like the answer, but she gets to answer.
[41:48]>> The question was, how many of >> They don't like the answer. Chairman >> because it's honest. >> So he asked a four minute question.
[41:58]>> Restore 45 seconds. Mr. Ner, please Mr. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. >> Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you start.
[42:10]>> You don't TELL ME. >> OH, I DID tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate. >> You're a lawyer. Not even a lawyer. >> Many will be in order. >> Time. And I should get back at least 45 seconds. >> We will give you a few more seconds. I said that already. >> 45 seconds.
[42:21]>> Okay, I will. I'm timing right now. Mr. Natler, go. >> I'm adding my time. The answer to my question, how many of Epstein's co-conspirators has she indicted is zero. You have been the attorney general
[42:33]for a whole year, and your DOJ fired the lead prosecutor of this case, sat on evidence this entire time, and claimed falsely last July that there were no more leads. It took an act of Congress
[42:45]for you to finally release part of the Epstein files, and when you did, you included personal information about the victims while protecting the names of abusers. >> Time of the gentleman brought to justice but enormous
[42:57]resources gentleman has expired and obviously >> clear that under your leadership the department of justice no longer works >> question in there Trump I yield back
[43:07]>> the gentleman yields back uh >> may I answer >> I think our next our next uh questioner uh madam attorney general is going to give you time to respond to >> thank you chairman >> all kinds of things so we will turn to
[43:19]the gentleman from Texas for five minutes >> miss Bond you go right ahead over here the time is yours Thank you. First, he brought up the
[43:30]president saying they indicted me twice. They sure did. They tried to impeach him twice. And you, Mr. Nadler, were one of the leads on the impeachment. I was on the other side. I lived that with you.
[43:42]During impeachment, you said the president conspired, sought foreign interference in the 2016 election. Robert Mueller found no evidence, none,
[43:53]of foreign interference in 2016. Have you apologized to President Trump? Have you apologized to President Trump? All of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald
[44:04]Trump, you all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the president and I am not going to have it. I'm not going to put up with it. You know, all they want to do, all the the
[44:16]American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today. This has been around since the Obama administration. This administration
[44:26]released over three million pages of documents. Over three million. And Donald Trump signed that law to release
[44:35]all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in the nation's history. And none of them none of them
[44:46]ask Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why?
[44:56]Because Donald Trump the Dow the Dow right now is over the Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader as
[45:07]I hear Raskin. The Dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000.
[45:16]And the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans 401ks and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about. We should be talking
[45:28]about making Americans safe. We should be talking about what does a Dow have to do with anything? That's what they just asked. Are you kidding? >> Mr. Jordan, am I Mr. Jordan.
[45:38]>> Committee will be in order. >> Mr. Jordan, am I going to get an extra 45 seconds added to my time? >> The committee will be in order. The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas,
[45:49]Miss Blondie. The attorney general can respond. Thank you. The DAO has shattered 50,000 for the first time. This is crazy. They said it
[46:00]couldn't be done in four years, yet President Trump has done it in one year. National median rents have fallen to a
[46:09]4-year low thanks to Donald Trump. That's why they want to focus on Epstein and our most transparent president in
[46:19]the nation's history. The murder rate, as I said, has plummeted to a 125 year low thanks to
[46:29]Donald Trump. For an unprecedented unprecedented nine straight months,
[46:39]there were zero illegal border crossings at the southern border. That's what we should be focused on. all the great work that this president has
[46:50]done and will continue to do to keep America safe and to make Americans safe. Thank you, uh, Attorney General Bondi. I agree with you totally. I think you've
[47:01]done a fine job. I think that Democrats, in fact, should be apologizing to the Epstein victims for doing nothing during the four years that they were running the government. We did not hear about this and it took you and President Trump
[47:13]to finally provide transparency and give answers to the American people. And I want to thank you for that. I want to thank you also for standing up for truth today and for fighting about fighting
[47:23]back against the theatrics and the time waste that you will endure over the next hour or two. I want to apologize on behalf of my colleagues on the left. They're they're not all that bad, but
[47:35]they've got to put on a show. And uh I'm sorry that you have to go through that. And I would like to yield the last I'd say 40 and 40 is 80 seconds. The clock says 40, but I've got 80 seconds since I
[47:45]was so rudely interrupted. And I'll give all 80 seconds to Chairman Jordan. >> And and I would just yield to the to the attorney general if she's has anything to add. >> I'm fine to continue. Thank you,
[47:59]chairman. >> All right. The chair now recognizes. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from California. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note that Mr. Nadler's question has not yet
[48:09]been answered, but I want to start by asking that out of respect for the American public and the Epstein survivors, some of whom of course are here today, that we can have a
[48:19]transparent conversation and get uh the public the answers they deserve. I want to briefly direct your attention to two documents I'm hoping we will put up on
[48:30]the screen. Um, in the first, an individual emails Jeffrey Epstein asking whether a woman identified as M was pro
[48:41]or civilian, and Epstein responds that she was a civilian, Russian, and fun. In the second email, Epstein writes to
[48:50]Steve Tish about a Ukrainian girl, noting that she was quote, "A little freaked out by the age difference and stating that he would try to convince
[48:59]her not to return to Ukraine." He then instructs Mr. Tish to call him, adding, "I don't like records of these conversations, so I'd like to ask a
[49:09]straightforward question that really is either a yes or no answer. Do these emails constitute credible evidence? Not proof, but credible evidence warning
[49:20]further investigation into whether Steve Tish was involved in Epstein's criminal conduct. Do you think yes or no?
[49:31]I'm not going to play a yes no game with you, but I will answer the question to the best of my ability. As I said, we will look and investigate any case involving any victim. I'm not familiar.
[49:43]There were 3 million pages of course with that email but of course we will look into anything. The documents have been released 3 million the redacted versions we left them open for all of
[49:55]you to come view. Have you I'm I believe you view them. If not will you have some copies? Could I finish please? I'm not being rude. Please. >> I only have five minutes. >> No. Yeah. And I only have 30 seconds
[50:05]based on your filibuster. >> But you didn't give a yes or no answer. So let me just uh go further. Director of Patel testified in this uh committee room that there was no credible
[50:17]information indicating that Epstein trafficked victims to anyone else. And glancing at the documents, that's proves that's not the case. Um in July, your
[50:28]department issued a memo stating that it had conducted an exhaustive review of the Epstein files and concluded that no additional individuals would be charged.
[50:38]So, I did go over to the Department of Justice yesterday. I would note that 400 and all our 35 members are in the House
[50:48]and there's four computers. So, um it would take many months to actually have the time. I, you know, I only had a few hours. I think the transparency argument
[50:59]is really kind of a sham because it's not really >> Whoa, whoa. Did you have to wait to get >> It is not possible to to really go in. I did however see a US attorney
[51:10]information for the Southern District of New York indicating that there were additional survivors and uh probable co-conspirators. Other members of Congress have uncovered
[51:21]likely co-conspirators whose names were blocked out. Now, the the the Epstein File Transparency Act, which all but one member of this House voted for and the
[51:32]president signed, requires the department uh to release everything except that uh it needs to be redacted
[51:40]to protect the victims uh or an ongoing uh prosecution, which apparently there is none from the testimony we have
[51:49]received. I am concerned that this uh act has not been fully complied with. When director Patel came to the committee, he admitted that up to a
[51:59]thousand FBI agents had gone through the files and redacted President Trump's name from them. And it's pretty clear that what has been transmitted from the
[52:10]FBI continues to redact President Trump's name even though he is mentioned, you know, thousands of times in these files. So I think the
[52:20]credibility of the department in terms of complying uh with the act has been damaged and I think the department's credibility has been damaged in other
[52:30]ways. I think we all saw the horrible video of American citizens uh being killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis. And
[52:40]I think how the department has handled these cases uh raises a lot of doubt about the department. State and local police in Minnesota got a court order to
[52:50]get access to the crime scene to be sure evidence would be properly preserved by federal agents. But they took the the agents defied the court order and in a
[53:02]depart uh departure from general policy. The DOJ is not collaborating with state and local law enforcement uh on these homicides. So, I I really think that is
[53:13]a disgraceful approach uh to the homicides of American citizens and uh really does uh nothing to bring credit to your department. And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
[53:24]>> Gentle yields back. >> May I answer? >> Attorney General can respond. I >> I find it interesting that she keeps going after President Trump, the greatest president in American history, and and if they could maintain their
[53:35]composure. This isn't a circus. This is a hearing. Uh, I find it interesting she keeps going after Donald Trump. She doesn't say how much money she took from
[53:43]Reed Hoffman. Did you? And nor Mr. Chairman, regular order, please. She posted nothing on her ex account on her Twitter account during the Biden years.
[53:55]>> Gentle lady now question. There was no question attorney general. She doesn't just get to >> Committee will be in order.
[54:05]>> I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Committee will be in order. >> Point of order, Mr. Chairman. >> Lady can state her point of order. >> Uh, when a witness attacks, >> not a valid point of order. You got to state.
[54:16]>> She hasn't completed her point of order yet. Please let her speak, Mr. Chairman. Let's have some regular order here. >> Regular order is you got to state the rule and >> I am trying I am trying to make a point of order that the witness >> and what rule are you referring to?
[54:27]>> Without responding to a question has attacked me personally. I think it's pathetic that she can't answer the questions and instead attack the point of order. The gentleman from Wisconsin
[54:37]is recognized. >> In August of last year, I sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for assistance in seeking compensation for the town of Lac Dambo. Town of Lac
[54:49]Flambo is in my district and your office replied that it was an ongoing matter and unable to comment on it, which which I understand that was just fine. But I want to set this up um just as a
[54:59]reminder. So three years ago, it was at this time of year that four roads were blockaded in the town of Lac Flambo and the temperature was 25 below zero.
[55:10]People had to park their cars at a neighbor's place, take the snowmobile across the lake to get their car and then be able to drive into town. There were people 80 and 90 years old that
[55:20]could not uh uh were very concerned that they'd be able to get emergency medical services. And the perpetrators of this,
[55:29]the tribe out there, they um uh demanded compensation from the town. I would call it extortion. They ultimately got $600,000
[55:40]from the town of Lacto Lambo. The unfortunate part, Mr. chairman is that the Biden administration took the side of the perpetrators who closed those
[55:51]roads off and the Biden administration um made it clear to the town of Lacto Flambo that um we are not on your side in regards to this. Well, fortunately,
[56:01]there was a federal judge that said, "No, this is wrong. What happened?" Um and these roads should be left open. They should continue to be left open. My question to you is, are you willing to
[56:13]work with my office and with the town of Lacto Flambo to further investigate this matter and seek compensation from the tribal government after their extortion
[56:24]of $600,000 from this little town in northern Wisconsin. >> Congressman, you do a great job representing your district. Um and yes,
[56:34]we would more than welcome working with you and we are familiar with that investigation. >> Mr. Chairman, I would just add we were highlighting these miscarriages of justice in the previous administration.
[56:46]This is just another one of those small examples, no different than the Catholic Dasis in Richmond and many others that you have retold so many times. But here's another instance of what they did
[56:56]to a small town and nearly bankrupted them as a result of it. Fortunately, there was a federal judge that saw through it and has fixed it.
[57:06]I want to move on to fraud enforcement. You've establish a national fraud enforcement division. Is that correct, Madam Attorney General? >> Yes, Congressman. >> Um, has this new division begun any
[57:18]investigations and getting after those individ individuals that have committed uh the rampant fraud we've seen like in Minnesota? Well, it's not only rampant
[57:28]in Minnesota, it's rampant throughout this country. Um, much of it is in California, as you know, and and other places. Yes, we are working on it um
[57:38]actively. Our our criminal fraud division has been working on it. We are expanding that. It was the vice president's idea to come up with this
[57:47]amazing separate fraud division which we are establishing and going non-stop not only to expose the fraud in Minnesota
[57:56]but around the country. It's taxpayer dollars that have been stolen um from the American people and we are committed to um to recovering that money and
[58:07]holding those people accountable. >> Mr. Chairman, I would remind everyone here why did this happen in Minneapolis? Why did federal law enforcement have to go to Minneapolis? Because of
[58:16]industrialcale fraud. It was an assistant United States attorney that said, "This is industrialcale fraud that's going on in Minnesota at this
[58:26]point." I sent a letter to our governor in Wisconsin. Um, you know, we're right across the border there. My district is only 20 miles from the city of Minneapolis. And I asked him to open the
[58:38]books for a federal audit on food stamps and Medicaid. Don't you think it would be a good idea for every governor to do that at this point? >> It protects the citizens and and and I
[58:50]can't understand why that's not happening. And yes, I do think that's a great idea. It's happening around this country. And when our new division with Colin McDonald is established, it's
[59:01]established when Colin is confirmed. He's amazing. I think you've met with him. You said chairman. >> When that is established, we're going to work on both sides of the aisle. That's
[59:10]what we want to do to stop fraud in every city in every state in this country. We will continue to fight for the American people. >> So you would encourage every governor
[59:21]across the United States after what we have seen in Minnesota, what we almost certainly know is happening in other states. You mentioned California. You would agree that every governor should
[59:32]avail themselves of federal resources to make sure that this industrial scale fraud is rooted out to protect the taxpayers of the United States. Is that correct? >> Absolutely.
[59:43]>> Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to thank you for holding this hearing and holding it in a proper fashion as you have. Secondly, I'd like to thank all of
[59:54]the victims of the Epstein case who've come here to attend this hearing for doing it and for being brave and trying to move this justice forward. I apologize. I can't do it with the
[1:00:05]attorney general not recognizing you. That's embarrassing. I am from Memphis. General Bondi uh and Memphis does have the task force there. The Memphis Safe Task Force has been operating in Memphis
[1:00:16]for several months. And we do have a Democratic mayor, Paul Young, and he's not against the tax task force, but he is against ICE being in Memphis, and he's not in favor of the National Guard being in Memphis. And I concur with him
[1:00:27]on those positions. I think the DEA being there, the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, the FBI, who have been in Memphis in other ways, having more people there is good for Memphis. Crime has gone down in Memphis, but it went
[1:00:39]down 25% before the task force got there under the direction of Mary Young and and Director Davis, uh, Chief Davis. Um, it's gone down about 15% more since then. And that's good. But I would like
[1:00:51]to comment that Mexico City's homicide rate has gone down 40% during the same time when Memphis's has only gone down 25%. And and that's not necessarily
[1:01:01]because of the task force, although the mayor says he thinks it's helped. So, I thank you for that. uh you would agree, I presume that violent crime in communities across our country is critically
[1:01:13]important and that's why the task force is there. Is that not true? >> Yes. And if I can just add to that, I think the surge the FBI, our FBI under the leadership of Director Patel came in
[1:01:24]and did a surge in Memphis earlier prior Yes. prior right prior to the task force. And thank you for saying that about U Mayor Young. He's been great to work with and and thank you. He's a good
[1:01:35]guy. >> He's a very good guy. >> One problem I've got with where we are in priorities here, >> a recent Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice report based on
[1:01:45]arrest records uh in Texas and in California found that undocumented immigrants were less than half as likely as US-born Americans to be arrested for homicide. And this pattern holds for
[1:01:56]assault, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, theft, and arson. Half as likely to be arrested for drug offenses. So, I ask you, and I've written to you about this, there are TV ads that run
[1:02:06]that say to local law enforcement specifically, says, "Are you tired of being having your hands uh handcuffed because you can't do the things you wanted to do when you joined? And if you want to do something different, join
[1:02:17]ICE, and you'll get a $50,000 bonus, and we'll pay your uh pay off your debts, student debts, and we'll help you with pensions, etc., etc., etc." So, they're encouraging local law enforcement to leave local law enforcement and go to
[1:02:29]work for ICE. We need people working in the front lines of local law enforcement to protect our citizens from the worst of the worst. The worst of the worst are not the immigrants. The worst of the
[1:02:40]worst, records show, are nativeborn Americans and they are committing crimes that hurt our citizens and our cities and you're working against it and thank you for that. But by trying to get our
[1:02:50]local law enforcement where we have an under count of officers in Memphis to leave Memphis and go to work for ICE to deport people is a wrong priority. Why are we trying to get people, policemen
[1:03:02]who are working on the front lines to leave the front lines, take the $50,000 and go to work for ICE and instead of working to fight the worst of the worst.
[1:03:13]>> Congressman, I have not yet seen that commercial, that ad. Um, I would argue that we need strong people in both local law enforcement, state law enforcement,
[1:03:22]and all of our federal agencies working together. Uh, I've seen some of the worst of the worst um, violent
[1:03:32]criminals, violent criminals who were in this country illegally. We both know that. And in Memphis, working hand in hand. I I want to stick with with
[1:03:42]Memphis and your mayor and what you discussed because there have been nearly 6,000 arrests as of February 8th. And I think you agree with this. Um, in in
[1:03:53]your district in your district and almost 600 gang members, what we found in Memphis, a lot of the gangs are are
[1:04:01]local gangs. Um, but 600 gang members were taken off my time because I've only agree with you. Yeah, >> I thank you for that.
[1:04:10]>> And 148 missing children were recovered by all of us working together and nearly
[1:04:17]one I'm 1,000 illegal guns were seized together and I don't disagree with some of the things you said, but there are questions about those children, but it's different thing.
[1:04:28]>> The fact is ICE is running rampant and you are not investigating them. When they killed Mr. pret and and and miss good that was an execution and you did not investigate it and you tried to
[1:04:40]investigate her Miss Good's widow and you tried to investigate Mr. Prey they were executed like Christine Gnome executed her dog and that was wrong and you should investigate those people and
[1:04:52]you should investigate anybody that uses a weapon in federal official or not for civil rights violations. I yield back the balance >> gentleman yields back his time. Madam Attorney General, anytime you need a break, just let us know. We'll just
[1:05:02]we'll just we'll just keep going. The chair is now recognized for 5 minutes. Madam Attorney General, you're not allowed to exercise your constitutional rights in a way that tramples on someone else's. Are you? >> No. >> No, you can't do that. I mean, you have
[1:05:14]a right to petition the government under the First Amendment. That doesn't mean you can come into this this room and start screaming at Mr. Raskin or me or anybody else and disrupt a congressional hearing. You have a right to protest on
[1:05:24]the street, but that doesn't give you a right to go into the capital and disrupt Congress. Something these guys talk about every every day. You can't do that. So when Don Lemon said that he was exercising
[1:05:35]his first amendment free press rights, freedom of the press rights, that's not really accurate because he was trampling on other individuals rights. Is that is
[1:05:44]that true, >> Chairman? We will always protect our churches and the freedom of religion. And yes, that's accurate.
[1:05:56]>> First right mentioned under the first amendment freedom of religion. freedom. Practice your faith the way you think the good Lord wants you to. Right. >> That's right. Under the federal government. >> And isn't it true that Mr. Lemon met at a shopping center with the riers who
[1:06:08]entered city's church in St. Paul, met with them prior to marching to the church. >> He did meet and and this is a pending
[1:06:20]case right now. So I will only stick to what is in the four corners of the unsealed indictment. If if I could, chairman, there's a lot a lot more that will come out, but under the four
[1:06:30]corners of the indictment, um yes, he did. They had an operation called Operation Pullup. Um they said they were gearing for a resistance. They met in a
[1:06:40]parking lot and they caravanned to a church on a Sunday morning when people were worshiping together. >> Mr. And Mr. Lemon said that uh uh he live streamed before entering the church
[1:06:52]with the riers. Didn't he say we're going to head to the operation? Didn't he say this on He said this on camera. Is that right? >> Yes. Chairman and more. >> That he was in Minnesota and that as you said they were gearing up for an
[1:07:03]operation. So you again you can't do that. This is why this is I think so important that this guy be held accountable and I think why you guys have have charged him and indicted him.
[1:07:14]U moving to the second subject here. Uh, will John Brennan be indicted? Mr. Mr. Brennan lied to the committee, which you're not supposed to do. Last Congress
[1:07:25]and we deposed him. He definitely 18 USC 10001. We're all familiar with it. He lied to the committee and the committee, the Congress, and I think the country would like to know if in fact he's going to be indicted for lying to And here's why it's so important. I'll give you a
[1:07:36]chance to respond. Here's why it's so important. Wasn't just that he lied to us. It's what he lied to us about. He lied to us about when all this weaponization against the president of
[1:07:46]the United States started. He lied to us about the dossier and specifically what what role the dossier played in the intelligence community assessment
[1:07:58]because we know back when President Trump was first elected first term. This is when it all started which led to the Mueller and to the impeachment and to the Jack Smith and all the stuff that's happened in the last decade. But it
[1:08:09]began here and he lied to Congress about the role he played. And I just want to read a couple of things he said during that deposition. Before I give you a chance to uh to respond, Mr. Brennan
[1:08:20]when asked a question said the CIA was not involved at all with the dossier. He said it was their purview, FBI's purview and not ours. He also said the CIA was very much opposed to having any
[1:08:31]reference or inclusion of the steel dossier in the intelligence community assessment. Well, that's interesting because declassified information that was
[1:08:40]declassified this past summer by the CIA says something entirely different. It says Brennan, I want to put this one up if we have it. It says Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing stating that quote, this is
[1:08:52]released by the CIA director Rackcliffe. My bottom line is that what I believe that that information warrants inclusion in the report, he was further asked by an ICA a CIA official.
[1:09:04]The same officer said when he approached the director and asked and that the director refused to remove it after being explained this wasn't good with the dossier's many flaws. He said yes
[1:09:16]but doesn't it ring true. So this is John Brennan using that document to change intelligence community assessment which I think led to all the stuff we've seen over the last decade.
[1:09:27]And I think this committee and the country, Congress in the country would like, excuse me, like to know if uh if Mr. Brenn is going to be indicted. >> All right, we are going to dip out of
[1:09:38]that live um exchange at the House Judiciary Committee there in New York. You were listening primarily to uh the attorney general, Pam Bondi, answer questions there from the committee about
[1:09:49]the Epstein files, although there were some other issues raised as well like um the ICE raids in Minnesota. Uh plenty of fiery exchanges as you may well have heard there with the Democrats on the
[1:10:00]committee less so it has to be said for the uh Republicans there. The ramp ranking Democrat um on the committee saying the redaction of names in the
[1:10:10]Epstein files in his words uh screams of a cover up that was the word words of Jamie Rascin. Uh listening to that with Miketavan Gorgani um our former
[1:10:21]Washington correspondent. Um uh lots of lots to unpack there, Ketavan. And first of all, just on the Epstein files and the approach being taken by the Justice
[1:10:32]Department. Did we learn anything actually from the questions that Pam Bondi was being asked? >> Unfortunately, no, because uh a only Democrats were asking questions about
[1:10:43]Epstein. The Republicans that we've heard so far were basically asking about everything but uh the Epstein files. The Democrats tried to ask specifically on
[1:10:55]two points. One uh is the fact that some of the victims names or identific uh identifying information were misredacted
[1:11:07]or not redacted at all by mistake says the Department of Justice, but asking whether that had been fixed, why it happened, things like that. The other aspect of it was uh why some of the
[1:11:19]names of some men who seem to be incriminated had uh been redacted by the Department of Justice. Uh so that was uh really the
[1:11:30]line of questioning that the Democrats came in with and they wanted to uh get answers or at least get an explanation as to whether or not the Department of Justice was going to do something about
[1:11:41]it. Uh and the fact is that uh Pam Bondi sort of took the same strategy as she did when she had another hearing in
[1:11:50]front uh of the House back in October of last year. Uh which is uh either deflect or go on the offense by either attacking the person who was asking her the
[1:12:01]question or attacking members of the past administration of the Biden administration uh and not really answering the question. That was pretty
[1:12:10]vivid when uh one of the Democrats, Jerry Nadler, asked her how many uh men had been uh indicted or were being
[1:12:21]investigated after the release of all those documents. And she multiple times refused to answer and in the end he answered himself by saying it was zero
[1:12:30]the number. Uh so uh unfortunately uh for the uh Epstein survivors, some of whom were actually sitting in that room behind a few rows behind Pam Bondi, uh
[1:12:42]they are not really coming out of there, at least from what we've heard so far with any answers as to why uh these redactions happened, why some of the
[1:12:52]redactions didn't happen. uh and the likelihood of any information coming out doesn't seem clear when you look at what Pam Bondi said. That said, uh there were
[1:13:03]also references to some of uh the documents, the unredacted documents that some of uh the Congress men and women have started seeing and the names that's
[1:13:15]that were redacted. Some of them are coming out and so there might be information coming out later, but it doesn't seem like it's going to come out through the mouth of the attorney general, at least from uh the first hour
[1:13:27]or so that we've listened to. >> Yeah. And your thoughts then um on the Republicans uh on the committee, you did touch on this, but it did sort of feel like the Republicans were just trying to kill time, weren't they? I mean, they
[1:13:38]didn't really answer ask uh Pam Bond any questions um about Epstein. And I suppose that sort of speaks to the polarization um in the Senate and in the House right now.
[1:13:49]>> Yes. And uh to be fair, this is often the case with some of these hearings and we saw it throughout the Trump administration, but also sometimes under previous administration, which is that
[1:14:00]usually uh the uh members that represent the party of the administration tend to uh try to uh lowball or softball the questions or talk about uh elements that
[1:14:12]they uh feel are their strong points as opposed to going on the offense, which is the role of the opposing party. So that was not surprising. Uh but the fact
[1:14:21]is that within the Democratic uh the Republican party there are divisions uh about the question of the Epstein files. And one person that we haven't heard
[1:14:33]from just yet is uh the rep Republican representative Tom Massie. Why is he important? He's the Republican co-author
[1:14:42]of the law that forced the Department of Justice to release the documents regarding these Epstein files. And he so far has not spoken. At some point there
[1:14:53]was a shot uh of uh the uh side where he's sitting and he was not even in his chair. So we'll see if he's going to come back. He's going to uh ask
[1:15:03]questions. Will he go on the offense and side with the Democrats on this issue? That is something that might be uh interesting. But the other Republicans
[1:15:13]are in a pretty uncomfortable position because if they were to ask about the Epstein files, they would have to ask about those redactions because this is something that other Republicans who
[1:15:25]have seen the unredacted documents. Not just Tom Massie, who is a critic of Donald Trump, but even some who are big supporters of Donald Trump have in the past few days said, "I didn't think
[1:15:36]there was a big problem there. and now I've seen the unredacted file and this is not okay and we need to get to the end of this. So for the Republicans, this is a particularly uncomfortable
[1:15:47]moment because they need to talk about certain things, but clearly they were trying to talk about anything besides uh the Epstein files
[1:15:58]>> and Pam Bondi herself. Um your thoughts then on her as attorney general? I mean, she was pretty robust, wasn't she, in her sort of sa staunch defending of the Justice Department, but also of President Trump. You said several times
[1:16:10]he's the most transparent president in American history. Just give us a little bit more about Pam Bondi. Um clearly, as I say, she's very loyal to Donald Trump, but what what's her background here? How
[1:16:20]did she end up um serving in such an important role? >> Well, look, she had several important uh roles in Florida, which is of course the state of Donald Trump. Uh and uh she got
[1:16:32]in part uh her job because of her loyalty to Donald Trump. and he she has really gone and served uh that president
[1:16:42]uh even out gone out of her way uh to really defend the president even on some issues. But she is also someone who in
[1:16:51]part created the Epstein problem for the US president. remember uh back when uh the Trump administration arrived in uh
[1:17:00]the White House, uh she was the one who came to the White House with binders that she said contained uh the uh names of Epstein's clients. Uh she gave she
[1:17:12]handed out those binders to influencers and right-wing uh content creators and said, "These are going to be the names." They did a whole photo op at the White
[1:17:22]House and then nothing happened. And then it had to be the Congress that had to force them to release those documents. So she is in a way partly responsible. And there are a lot of
[1:17:33]critics of Pam Bondi in private within the Trump administration thinking that she has done a little bit of harm to the US president by her handling of uh this
[1:17:44]situation. But uh just to focus on some of the things she said. She said about the transparency that Donald Trump was the one who released all the documents failing again to mention that he had
[1:17:55]been forced to do it by law instead of doing it on his own. She also said something and I'll end on that which was uh we will investigate anything that
[1:18:06]looks like it could be criminal or incriminating in the documents that were just released. That is not exactly what her deputy, the deputy attorney general
[1:18:16]Todd Blanch said when he released uh the latest batch of documents where he indicated uh that there was probably no reason to go forward with any new
[1:18:27]investigation or any new prosecution. So, a lot of contradictions there also from uh Pam Bondi with the reality of what is going on right now. >> All right. Thank you very