Transcription
Lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee are threatening contempt of Congress charges against the newly fired Attorney General, Pam Bondi, if she does not testify about her handling of the Epstein files.
Next week, the Justice Department tried to give her cover today, saying, quote, "because Miss Bondi no longer can testify in her official capacity as attorney general, the department's position is that the subpoena no longer obligates her to appear next week."
The top Democrat on that panel is now threatening to hold her in contempt of Congress, and he may just get support from the Republicans on the committee, is, at least Representative Nancy Mace, who led the subpoena effort in the first place. Congresswoman Mace posting this today. "Pam Bondi cannot escape accountability. The American people deserve answers, and we expect her to appear as soon as a new date is set."
My political sources are back with me and joined by my legal source, the former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig. So the DOJ says she's not attorney general. Subpoena is not valid. True?
No, that's a bogus argument, John. So here's why. A subpoena is simply a command to a witness to provide relevant information, if they have any. As we sit here right now, former Attorney General Pam Bondi has the exact same information that she had a week ago when she was still the sitting AG. Now DOJ has come up with this distinction of, well, she's not the AG anymore, therefore the subpoena is invalid. First of all, the subpoena is to Pam Bondi. It's not to the current occupant of the office. Second of all, if that subpoena meant whoever the current AG is, DOJ would be offering up Todd Blanch, which they're not doing. And third of all, John, this committee has already subpoenaed several prior AG's, including Eric Holder, including Bill Barr, and including Merrick Garland, so this remains valid.
Democratic Congressman Garcia, the ranking member, says he would try to hold her in contempt if she doesn't appear. How would you expect that to play out? They wouldn't have the votes, would they?
So the Oversight Committee, all the Democrats would need to be joined by three Republicans on the committee to get a majority. So we know Nancy Mace is one. Will they have two others? Who knows. If it gets through the Oversight Committee, then it goes to the full House. But here's the thing, John. If the full House votes contempt, then it goes over to DOJ for potential prosecution. I am quite certain Todd Blanch will not authorize a prosecution of Pam Bondi, but it's worth saying for a DOJ, Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch, like who love to congratulate themselves for being the most transparent in history. That would be a bad look to take a contempt charge from the Oversight Committee or the full House.
Quick one here. Is it possible they may have to reissue the subpoena for Pam Bondi, citizen, not Pam Bondi, attorney general?
Yeah, if they're going to if the defense here is going to be on some technicality, then it may be worth the ten minutes it takes to just retype the subpoena if that's going to settle this.
Sure. So, Scott, when she was attorney general, Pam Bondi says this is the most transparent administration in history. As you know, another of several Republicans and say lots of Republicans who say that doesn't hold water, Democrats say that does hold water. Do you think she should just testify? I mean, clearly the White House would like this to go away. She would like this to go away. But there are enough Republicans to make sure it's not going to go away. And there's an election in November. Should they get this over with?
What? I don't have a problem with her actually testifying. I also don't have a problem with the White House asserting whatever privileges it thinks it has. And I don't have a problem with the committee asserting whatever authority it thinks it has. But, you know, bottom line, if she goes and answers questions and answers them truthfully and transparently, I don't personally have a problem with it. I think Commerce Secretary Rudnick is also going into the Oversight Committee sometime in the next few weeks. So whether she goes in right now or not, there's going to be another round of this. Look, people still have questions about it. She was obviously there, at the top of DOJ when that law was passed and all these files were being released. So I think the American people would have some expectation that you would show up and answer to the best of your ability. But again, the administration may have some legitimate arguments about information that they would deem privileged. And of course, there's ways to litigate that.
Is is part of the argument here. Congressman Garcia says he'll push for contempt. They might get that through the committee with Congressman Mason, a couple of others. They're not going to get it through the floor. Should party argument be here?
You know, the odds are today seven months is a long time, but the odds are today there'll be a Democratic majority on that committee next year. So you're coming now or coming later? The main argument is the victims deserve it. And if you. I have worked with victims of sexual assault and rape. And if you are serious about being transparent, then you go and you answer the questions. And if you don't, then you're not serious. And in the context of this midterm election, it reminds voters that this DOJ is protecting Donald Trump and and asked the question, what are you afraid of? And these victims are survivors. They're not going away. It doesn't matter who's in Congress. They're going to keep up this fight. And the echo chamber that we were talking about in the last segment, they're going to keep up this conversation. So either you you believe that these women deserve justice or you don't. And if you they're you're going to be found out if you won't go answer.
Protecting Donald Trump from what? Protecting Donald Trump from whatever results is in the files. I mean, it is the appearance whether they are or not. It gives certainly gives the appearance that they're protected. So you're if you're not, you're you're promoting the unfounded conspiracy theory that he has, something to hide and the read about it. So let's, let's, let's agree with you on that one. But say he did promise he would release it. That's right. He signed the law. And they haven't done that. And he has made them do it.
I'm joined now by Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw of Virginia, who sits on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, welcome. I mean, why do you believe the DOJ does not want her to testify?
Well, it's clear that the DOJ failed to comply with the law. The Epstein Files Transparency Act was very clear. The files, all the files had to be released with a narrow category of redactions allowed. They missed the deadline to release the files. They still haven't released two and a half to 3 million files, and they illegally redacted thousands of files. And they don't want her to testify because we would ask her questions about that. Who made the decision to illegally redact certain files? Who made the decision to stop releasing files before the law was fully complied with? What conversations, if any, took place with President Trump about those decisions? They don't want her to answer questions like that. I think it's quite clear. It's striking because there have been a number of people who have had very high profile roles, including a former president of the United States, who have had to answer questions. You're talking about officials who talk to your committee like the attorney general, Bill Barr. Alex Acosta, obviously the person behind the sweetheart deal in Florida, others, even Hillary Clinton, did her deposition as well.
So talk to you about how the survivors are feeling about the prospect of the DOJ trying to get her not to comply with what they say is no longer a relevant subpoena, because they say you must have meant her official capacity. You said Pam Bondi.
Well, I think it's another betrayal of the survivors who have courageously and continuously called for transparency and accountability. And that's what we're fighting for and pushing for. Look, the legal argument that because she's no longer attorney general, the subpoena is no longer valid or doesn't apply to her is laughable on its face. The purpose of the subpoena is to get information relevant to our investigation. That information is in Pam Bondi's head. It was in her head before she was fired. It's in her head today after she's been fired. She needs to show up on April 14th. So still, her legal obligation to comply with the subpoena and answer our questions under oath.
Contempt is always, you know, one pathway to do so. There are obviously different ways there's a civil contempt, but much more lengthy procedure involving a judge is criminal contempt, referring it back to her very own department or sergeant at arms taken into custody. What is the likelihood of any of those mechanisms working when DOJ is probably certain not to refer her or to prosecute her in some way?
Well, I think with this DOJ, certainly the avenue, the contempt avenue most likely to succeed would be the civil avenue, which, as you pointed out, would go to the courts and could lead to the imposition of fines, including fines levied each day that she fails to appear and comply with a subpoena. I think that's a very valid and possible option. We might also choose to pursue that criminal contempt option and put DOJ in the position of refusing to prosecute and move forward. I think that would highlight, again, for the American people, the extent of this Trump administration cover up of the Epstein files.
There have been those who have commented that they believe that you were fine with the Clintons obstructing their subpoenas. That was the phrasing they used for seven months, and vote against holding them in contempt, telling you to relax photographs was part of the tweet about you. But, talk to me about why this is distinguishable from your decision to not try to hold them in contempt.
Well, actually, I voted to hold the Clintons in civil contempt, I didn't criminal. That's right. I didn't support criminal contempt because I don't think that would have got us the outcome that we wanted to, which was to have a conversation. I do think it's important to separate Bill and Hillary Clinton here. And I said this throughout that episode, Hillary Clinton had no information. Zero, zip, zilch, nada about Epstein, no relationship. The only reason she was forced to, participate in the deposition is political purposes. Chairman Comer wanted a Hillary Clinton scalp to put up on his wall. I think he failed. Republicans look ridiculous in that Bill Clinton had a relationship with Epstein. Legitimate questions were asked in that deposition. I think it was fruitful. I'm glad that it happened. I supported civil contempt to help ensure that it did happen. Chairman Comer set the precedent here. If you don't show up on the date and time he sets, he moves forward with criminal contempt. I'm sure he's going to do the same for Pam Bondi. If she doesn't show up on the date and time he set, which is April 14th.
If you can't get Bondi, are you going to ask for Todd Bland? She is now the acting attorney general.
Well, I believe we can and will get Bondi whether it's this year or next year. But Todd Blanch at some point I think we'll have to answer questions as well. And Attorney General Bondi delegated to Todd Blanch a lot of the day to day authority around the Epstein files. Perhaps some of the decision making around those redactions, as he has said. And based on what we hear from Pam Bondi, we might want to ask him questions as well. I certainly think you'd ask about his visit to see Glenn Maxwell.
Well, that's just Congressman James Walkinshaw. Thank you. Thank you.