Jamil Smith (2:34)

Yeah, that's. That's good family advice.

Jonathan V. (2:38)

Let's start with that. Don't do that.

Jamil Smith (2:40)

Yeah.

Jonathan V. (2:41)

I guess. Before we start with the stock market clip, do you have any. Any thoughts that, you know, any wrapping paper you want to put on the whole day?

Jamil Smith (2:49)

One thing, it is entirely new to have an attorney general treating Congress with contempt, open contempt, and also acting as if she works directly for the president. This is again, we. I feel silly even having to stipulate to this, but in the before times, the attorney general and in fact all cabinet members would go through the motions of yes, sir, honorable gentleman or gentle lady. This is an interesting question. What I really want to talk about is blah, blah, blah. And they would go to pains to underscore the fact to which they were independent of the president. And that's just gone. She acts like she's Stephen Miller.

Jonathan V. (3:45)

Yeah. I mean, worse, honestly, at times, Carolyn Levitt.

Jamil Smith (3:49)

Yeah.

Jonathan V. (3:49)

Or Carolyn Levitt plausibly tries to answer the questions being asked. Pam Bondi just had total. Just dealt with the elected representatives of we the People with utter contempt. As if they had no bearing or as if they were just gnats flying around her head.

Jamil Smith (4:10)

Maybe people don't understand this, but this is brand new. It didn't used to be like this.

Jonathan V. (4:15)

This is brand new, though. I'm kind of surprised they're showing up at all. What's your take on that? Why are they showing up at all?

Jamil Smith (4:22)

Well, I think on the Epstein thing, it's because to not show up with Epstein, bad optics right now. You got to show up because you have to rep Trump on Epstein because he's at the rate at the bottom of this is like got to make sure people don't think that he was, you know, doing stuff. And so that's why.

Jonathan V. (4:45)

You know what?

Jamil Smith (4:46)

Yeah.

Jonathan V. (4:47)

Okay.

Jamil Smith (4:47)

Is it your read too, or. No?

Jonathan V. (4:49)

I think it's a little bit of hubris and also a little bit of optics. I don't know. But part of it is. It just is like the one thing that it makes me think. And you oftentimes point to the other side of this where you're like, if Donald Trump was not planning on leaving, what would he be doing differently? You know, and, and I think here's one example. If they were really planning on just becoming an autocracy, one thing they would be doing differently is saying £ SAM Congress, we don't need to show up to your stupid kangaroo court. And they're not doing that. They're going. I just think that's an interesting data point.

Jamil Smith (5:20)

Just wanna ask though, what do you think the odds are that they continue to show up in a Democratic led house? Because I think they go to zero.

Jonathan V. (5:30)

Yeah, I was gonna say below 50. So there we go. That's the difference between us. You know, I'm always in the hedging. Let's move the wonderful optics from her conversation about things are going great in your 401k. I don't know if you guys have noticed that Fox was telling us about that today. Pam Bondi was asked about various Epstein items. Let's hear what her initial spin was.

Pam Bondi (5:55)

Have you apologized to President Trump? Have you apologized to President Trump? All of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald 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 American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today. This has been around since the Obama administration. This administration released over 3 million pages of documents. Over 3 million. And Donald Trump's signed that law to release all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in the nation's history. And none of them, none of them ask Merrick Garland. Over the last four years, one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Merrick Garland, 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 I hear Raskin, the dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000.

Jonathan V. (7:15)

I guess that kind of answers my rhetorical question. Why show up to do a performance for the audience of one?

Jamil Smith (7:22)

Yeah. And I mean it is, it's a lot like JD Vance in front of Zelensky. Like, you know, have you even said thank you once? Have you even apologized? The weirdness of the parallel structures here shows that these people do understand what he wants to hear.

Ted Lieu (7:40)

Right?

Jamil Smith (7:41)

He wants to hear them berating the bad people for not doing whatever thing they would have, should have done. In the president's fantasies. And so for Zelensky, it's like he should have been bowing and scraping and thank you, thank you. And for them it's, oh, Mr. President, we're so sorry. We're so sorry over the impeachments.

Jonathan V. (7:59)

I think that she knows that Trump likes that and that the like Team Jersey MAGA people will love that performance. Right. I mean, it's like it's breathless. It's ridiculous, it's not compelling. The problem for me is though, in the Epstein situation is a little different because in theory they would also like to be talking to Rogan verse like podcast land. Like other people who have been interested in Epstein who are not necessarily teen Jersey Republicans. Sean Hannity viewers. Like, that's going to do nicely on Sean Hannity. I feel like that doesn't play at all with like regular bros who are like, wait a minute, I just want to know who the kid fuckers are. Okay, great. Thanks. Congrats on the nasdaq. I don't know.

Jamil Smith (8:47)

Yeah, I mean, on the other hand.

Jonathan V. (8:48)

I, she also didn't seem to have control of her faculties. Really. She's a little.

Jamil Smith (8:52)

Well, again, the idea that your attorney general, just somebody who stands there shouting at all caps.

Jonathan V. (8:57)

Yeah.

Jamil Smith (8:57)

Is there are positions in the executive branch where it is okay to have somebody like that. Traditionally that has not been the nation's top law enforcement officer. Just, just saying. But I think they've probably made peace the fact that they're going to lose whoever they're going to lose in bro world over Epstein and what is really important to them because they can survive losing those people. They can't survive losing the team. Our jerseys.

Jonathan V. (9:25)

Yeah.

Jamil Smith (9:26)

And so that's why they've got to lock those people down because if you start having erosion on them. We, we saw this in the YouGov poll yesterday and you know, he's down to like 82% approve from Republicans, which sounds like way more than it should, but is actually for him quite low. Normally he's in low 90s high, high 80s.

Jonathan V. (9:44)

Well, as these things go, as these hearings go, as folks who are watchers of them, they go back and forth with the questioning. So you'll have a questioning from the Democratic side and the Republican side. The question from the Republican side was overwhelmingly like, oh, Attorney General Bondi, will you tell us how great of a job you guys have been doing going after the woke left? But there was one exception to that. Thomas Massie of Kentucky maybe providing a reason to answer to your question from TNL yesterday. Jvl, why stay? As a Republican, he gets to answer. He gets to ask these questions from the Republican side of the table.

Jamil Smith (10:17)

Fair enough.

Jonathan V. (10:17)

And Thomas Massie, giving her the business a little bit. Let's watch who's responsible.

Ted Lieu (10:22)

Are you able to track who in your organization made this massive failure and released the victims names? Are you able to track who it was that obscured Les Wexner's name? And as a co conspirator in an FBI document, do you have that kind of accountability?

Pam Bondi (10:42)

I believe Wexner's name was listed more than 4,000 times about.

Jonathan V. (10:47)

I had.

Ted Lieu (10:47)

Yeah, I already told you that. This is where he's listed as a co conspirator.

Pam Bondi (10:50)

My answer. Come on, let me finish my answer. We corrected that. Within 40 minutes, he was already. You're acting like everybody's trying to cover up Wexner's name.

Ted Lieu (11:01)

Reclaiming. Reclaiming my time.

Pam Bondi (11:03)

Answer this question.

Ted Lieu (11:04)

Claiming my time.

Pam Bondi (11:05)

He was. Mr. Chairman, how this works?

Ted Lieu (11:07)

Can I have my time?

Pam Bondi (11:08)

He was. He.

Ted Lieu (11:09)

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady can. Can give her answer. The time belongs to the gentleman from. All right, I'm reclaiming my time.

Pam Bondi (11:14)

I give my answer.

Ted Lieu (11:15)

So I'm gonna put the language of the bill up on the screen.

Pam Bondi (11:19)

Chairman, may I give you. I have another question on that. Here's the question, and I need to give my answer on that.

Jonathan V. (11:26)

We'll let the attorney General respond, and.

Ted Lieu (11:27)

Then the gentleman can move to chairman.

Pam Bondi (11:29)

Within 40 minutes, you asked me a question. Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back.

Ted Lieu (11:36)

Within 40 minutes of me catching you red handed.

Pam Bondi (11:39)

Red handed. There was one redaction where he's listed.

Ted Lieu (11:43)

As a co conspirator.

Pam Bondi (11:45)

And we invited you in. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.

Jonathan V. (11:49)

He has Trump derangement syndrome. Thomas Massie, Republican congressman from Kentucky. Failed politician, I think one more election. So Pam Bondi has. But what you. What did you make of their exchange?

Jamil Smith (12:01)

I. I mean, I would say the dishonesty is breathtaking, but of course it's not, because, I mean, he's asking a very. A very reasonable question, which is in this incredibly crucial place where there are documents in which he. The Wexner's name is listed as a co conspirator that got redacted in flagrant violation of black letter law. Can you tell us who did that? And that's not even asking like, who did that? It's like, do you have. How does your system of redaction work? Do you have a setup in which every redaction is attached through Metadata to the person, the user who logged in, who was carrying that out. Which is a totally reasonable question, actually, and kind of an interesting question. Right. You assume all this is being done electronically. It's not like people are sitting there with black Sharpies. Is everybody who's doing this logged in so that all, all edits are. Are trackable to the person who did them? And she just refuses to engage on it? I mean, it's just unresponsive. And that's one of the things we see over and over is unresponsive, even to questions which are like, this is at heart, this is a technical question about how the redaction process is being carried out by the Justice Department. And she refuses to be transparent about that at all.

Jonathan V. (13:22)

Yeah, and it like adds in the layer of like, this is about a, like this question is really about a competence more than cover up. Yeah, right, right. It wasn't even a political accusation. It's like, are you guys, do you guys know what you're doing? I mean you, you left unredacted the victims names and you redacted the perp's name. Right? Like that's the opposite of what you should have done. How'd that happen? Are you going to fix it? And you know, I mean, who the hell knows? I mean they probably have Grok doing the redactions, you know, at some level. And I think there's a cover up element to this, but there is also an incompetence level and we, we shot down a balloon on the border.

Jamil Smith (13:53)

Yeah, well, that's what it really is. Right? It's a. How are you guys doing this thing? Which you are mandated by law to. The answer is, I guess we're just all in the honor system, right? The law says Department of Justice has to do this. Department of justice puts out a work product and the work product sucks and doesn't comply with the law. And when Congress goes to exert some oversight and say, wait a minute, hold on, how are you doing this thing? The Department of Justice just says fuck you.

Jonathan V. (14:19)

Right?

Jamil Smith (14:20)

I mean, okay, right.

Jonathan V. (14:23)

It's our law. We pass the law. I want to get back to a couple more Epstein things, but first there was one other topic or there are several other topics that brought up, but one that I think is worth highlighting. Jonah Goose, rep from Colorado, fellow Nuggets fan, big I'm a big negus man. He. He wanted to bring up the case of one of the pardoned J6ers who now apparently works for us, the public servant working in the Justice Department. Let's take a look at that exchange.

Ted Lieu (14:51)

Hey, you guys are disgusting. I'm former law enforcement. You're disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can't stop see it because you're chasing your pension. Right? Your pension, your retirement. Right. That's what runs your life, your retirement. The sad thing is they're not even.

Jonathan V. (15:06)

Going to get their pension because it's going to be your. Seems like a level headed gentleman.

Jamil Smith (15:21)

Yeah.

Jonathan V. (15:21)

Somebody. Do you want an official position of.

Jamil Smith (15:23)

Authority for the government just exercising his first speech?

Ted Lieu (15:28)

That man works for you now, right?

Pam Bondi (15:33)

Who was that congressman?

Ted Lieu (15:35)

The man in that video, the one who was in the police worn body cam footage. The one allegedly yelling kill him at police officers on January 6. His name is Jared Wise.

Pam Bondi (15:47)

He does work for us.

Ted Lieu (15:48)

He works for you at the Department of Justice?

Pam Bondi (15:50)

He does.

Jonathan V. (15:51)

This is an individual meritocracy whom a.

Ted Lieu (15:53)

Federal grand jury indicted for two felonies and four misdemeanors related to his participation in the attack on January 6th. One of those charges was forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with police with the intent to commit another felony. This is who you choose as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America to hire at the Department of Justice. Someone on video yelling kill him at police officers.

Tim Miller (16:25)

Right.

Pam Bondi (16:26)

I believe he was pardoned by President Trump.

Ted Lieu (16:28)

Oh, he was pardoned.

Tim Miller (16:30)

You're right.

Jonathan V. (16:31)

You're right.

Ted Lieu (16:32)

Pardoned by President Trump.

Jamil Smith (16:34)

That means it didn't happen. You know, it's like deleting a tweet, Tim. Right. When you delete the truth social post with the Obamas as apes. It didn't happen. And when you get pardoned, it means, you know, saying that you kill him to a bunch of cops. That didn't happen either.

Pam Bondi (16:51)

Yeah.

Jonathan V. (16:52)

I don't know, you know, like the blue.

Jamil Smith (16:53)

Tim.

Jonathan V. (16:54)

I want people to be able to have a second chance in life. I don't think he should have got a pardon. I think that somebody that did attack the Capitol, that ended up serving time, getting out of jail because they were pardoned corruptly by the president should have a chance to like manage a McDonald's or something. I don't know, maybe work the cashier's desk there at the, at the McDonald's. I think there are other potential jobs that might be appropriate for him. The Justice Department seems like a strange choice. Like even if he was pardoned, I mean, he was there saying kill the cops and.

Jamil Smith (17:29)

But those are the bad cops, Tim.

Jonathan V. (17:31)

Got it.

Jamil Smith (17:32)

Those are the bad cops. You got to Keep it straight.

Tim Miller (17:34)

Right?

Jamil Smith (17:34)

There's the good cops, then there's the bad cops and these are the bad cops.

Jonathan V. (17:38)

So we're just learning more and more. So if you're wondering how do you think that they fucked up the redaction so bad that they redacted the names of the perpetrators, the co conspirators, the pedos with Epstein, but they left unredacted the victims names. How could they have done that? How could they have at the border shot down a balloon when they thought it was a drone and closed down a whole major cities airport for a while because they were confused by a balloon? The answer does seem to be maybe the jer that's the Jared Wises of the world or are at the helm.

Jamil Smith (18:06)

They're not sending us their best, Tim.

Jonathan V. (18:08)

I don't think they are. Up next, things really escalated when Ted Lo of California started questioning Pam Bondi. I think that he paints her into a corner on whether she's sharing the truth in her testimony. She isn't happy about it. And then he shares some really jarring testimony that's in the files implicating potentially Donald Trump. So let's take a look at that.

Ted Lieu (18:39)

Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to know were there any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein.

Pam Bondi (19:01)

This is so ridiculous. And that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done. There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that. This has been the most transparent presidency. He's the one that those files let.

Ted Lieu (19:20)

Me claim my time. I got your answer. You said there's no evidence Trump. Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock.

Pam Bondi (19:26)

Legislation.

Ted Lieu (19:27)

This, this is time.

Jonathan V. (19:29)

Belongs to the gentleman from California.

Ted Lieu (19:31)

Okay, I'm going to put up another document from a witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operations center because I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein file.

Pam Bondi (19:45)

Don't you ever accuse me of a crime.

Ted Lieu (19:47)

I believe you just lied under oath. And this is on videotape. You said there's no evidence of crime. I'm showing you. Here is a witness statement who called into the FBI's threat operations center. He drove Donald Trump around in a limo. He overheard what Donald Trump said to Jeffrey on his cell phone. He was so angry. He was going to stop a limo and hurt Donald Trump. And he met a girl who said she was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. She later had her head blown off and officers at the scene said that could not have been suicide. No one, no one at the Department of Justice interviewed this witness. You need to interview this witness immediately. Epstein should rot in hell. So should the men who patronize this operation. And as we sit here today, There are over 1,000 sex trafficking victims and you have not held a single man accountable. Shame on you. If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes.

Jonathan V. (20:49)

All right, Jamil, just let's do the first part of this. First, like, I did enjoy just the. I just believe. I believe you just lied under oath. I like that bluntness. A lot of times the Democrats and journalists are hesitant to just be blunt. And Ted Liu there isn't. And he's just like, look, you said there's no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. I believe that's a lie. There is evidence that he committed a crime. Before we get into the specific one that Lou brought up, I mean, Trump admitted to crimes related to women before, and he was caught on tape saying that women let you do whatever you want. And he has. There have been many, many cred. Accusations of sexual assault that he, that he's committed, not, not in court crimes. So, you know, anyway, like, just on that point, she gets back into a corner. And, I mean, loses are cool. Her cortisol spikes.

Jamil Smith (21:40)

What I found interesting of that was that she objected to being told that she's lying under oath, because lying under oath is a thing that many of the Trump appointees have done at this point.

Jonathan V. (21:54)

Right.

Jamil Smith (21:54)

And they have never seemed particularly bothered by that.

Jonathan V. (22:00)

Right.

Jamil Smith (22:01)

The results seem, the general affect seems to be, yeah, so I lied under oath. What are you going to do about it?

Jonathan V. (22:08)

Yeah, right.

Jamil Smith (22:08)

And she takes the out. She does this sort of like, how dare you, sir? And I, I found that a little weird and interesting. And this is a thing where I do, like, you know, as you said earlier, going forward, how serious are they about trying to hang on and start playing by extra legal means? You know, which we're going to see. I think probably a lot of as this year progresses, especially as we get closer to the election. And, you know, at some point, do they really stop? Like, does everybody stop caring that it looks like they're lying to Congress or committing perjuries or. I mean, there, there's a thing that I noticed on the White House website this week where I went to the White House website and I got a pop up that was like, you know, give us your email here so that we can keep you up to date with all the latest news, etc. Etc. And I thought, I mean, it's possible that this is gathering emails for like, White House comms purposes, but it seems also possible this is gathering emails for like, Republican fundraising, which would be, if true, a very serious violation. But like, like all the Hatch act stuff, right? They've just stopped pretending to care about the Hatch act stuff. Maybe it's like that too. I don't know.

Jonathan V. (23:27)

Yeah, I mean, at this point, you know, she's just losing her temper also. And yeah, maybe things like throwing a fastball back at them. The fact that Lou brought up that, that the accusation or the testimony from the limousine driver I thought was also interesting. This is just such another difference from what any other Justice Department would do in a situation right. Like this. Right. Because, like, in a situation like that, I don't, you know, the FBI gets, Donald Trump's been a famous person. Like, the FBI gets bunk reports all the time from, from people who are either crazy people or people are trying to cause trouble or whatever. So, like, is that that, is that real? Is that legit? That is like the what the job of this release should have been, right? Like that there are career prosecutors who are taking this stuff seriously, going back through everything, putting them out in a package, saying, hey, here are credible accusations. Here's some things that were included that we're going to share for transparency. But like in the past, some U.S. attorney looked into it and they saw that it was, you know, that the person was fabricating that whatever, like, they didn't do that. They just dumped everything out there. And so when you do that, and when the President of the United States is a serial perv and sexual assault artist, you're going to get into these situations. That is obviously very alarming report that Congressman Lu laid out. And like, our government cannot credibly interpret that for, for, for any of us. And they don't seem to obviously have any interest in investigating it.

Jamil Smith (25:02)

And that's the thing, right? And there is zero percent chance that anybody ever goes and investigates this because that's not what our Justice Department does anymore.

Jonathan V. (25:12)

I want to fast forward towards, towards the end of this here and go to Jerry Nadler, who's gonna be replaced by. He's in the Bulwark Primary. George is in there, a bunch of, couple of guys, the Kennedy kids, everybody wants Jerry Nadler's seat. And you can see why. See, senior member of the committee asked her about what I think is, again, the core question about all of this, right? There's a lot of sub stories and Side stories and conspiracies and there's political implications. The real story is who are the other co conspirators? Is there going to be justice for the victims? That's the serious part about this. That isn't really political at all. It's only political in the sense that maybe some of the co conspirators are in the inner circle of this White House. But like, but you know, that is what is the real thing that we need to discover here. And Nadler goes at Bondi on that point. Let's watch that.

Ted Lieu (26:08)

So I really have just one question for you. How many of Epstein's co conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating?

Pam Bondi (26:25)

First you showed it. I find it.

Ted Lieu (26:28)

How many have you guided.

Pam Bondi (26:29)

Excuse me. I'm going to answer the question.

Ted Lieu (26:31)

Answer my question.

Pam Bondi (26:32)

No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question.

Ted Lieu (26:36)

You answer the question the way I asked it.

Pam Bondi (26:37)

Chairman Jordan. I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. I'm going to answer the question.

Ted Lieu (26:41)

How many of you invited again the time velocity. I'm claiming my time.

Jamil Smith (26:45)

The time belongs.

Pam Bondi (26:46)

I think it's very interesting naming my time. I think it's very, very interesting. He talks about they indicted the President, said they indicted him twice.

Ted Lieu (26:54)

Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock and Stop the clock and restore his time.

Tim Miller (27:00)

Belongs.

Ted Lieu (27:00)

Gentleman from New York. We will give you a few more seconds. We will do that. But when you ask a question, the witness gets.

Tim Miller (27:07)

You may not like the answer, but.

Ted Lieu (27:08)

She gets to answer. Question was how many of Epstein.

Pam Bondi (27:11)

They don't like the answer. Chair give me my turn.

Jamil Smith (27:14)

Time.

Pam Bondi (27:14)

Because it's honest. So he asked a four minute question.

Ted Lieu (27:19)

Restore 45 seconds. Mr. N. Please. Mr. Chairman, you can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time.

Jamil Smith (27:27)

No way.

Ted Lieu (27:28)

And I told you about that Attorney General before you started.

Pam Bondi (27:31)

You don't tell me.

Jamil Smith (27:32)

Oh, I did tell you because we.

Ted Lieu (27:33)

Saw what you did in the Senate lawyer.

Pam Bondi (27:35)

Not even a lawyer.

Jonathan V. (27:36)

Mitty will be in order. So there you have it. Jbl I like that's. That's the key. And if you took any of these fucking MAGA chuds at their word, that's the thing that they cared about. That's what Cash said back in the day, which is that like, like if there is anybody who else was involved in the pedophilia ring, we will come for you. We will put you in jail, we'll put you behind bars. It's what the FBI director said. And here we have Nadler asking about that specific question, like a very relevant substantive question. Who were the other perpetrators? Who were the other child rapists? And Pam Bondi again resorts to theatrics and like insults and doing the like Donald Trump insult comedy, but without the charm.

Jamil Smith (28:18)

This will tell us a lot about the American voters.

Jonathan V. (28:22)

Right.

Jamil Smith (28:22)

Because you saw this show up on survey after survey over the last four years where Republican voters were really deeply concerned about all this stuff. And we even got an entire universe conspiracy theory which developed around this. And now it turns out that I am not here to say that QAnon had it right. That is not true. That is not the case. But it is the case that there was a cabal of a ring of pedophiles at the very highest elite levels and that it they didn't wear babies faces and do frazzle drip. But you know, there was, there was a bunch of criming going on and it was all being covered up and there's all sorts of mysterious deaths associated with it. And now a lot of those people just simply don't care. And more to the point, they even pretend that they're going to care about it, like to go after Democrats. I don't know if you remember this, but we had a moment immediately after the law was signed about mandating the release where the Justice Department was like, oh, there's a bunch of stuff we can't put out because it has a bunch of Democrats in it.

Jonathan V. (29:32)

Yeah.

Jamil Smith (29:33)

And the response by I think people like us was great. You're gonna prosecute those people, right?

Jonathan V. (29:39)

Yeah. Great. Do it.

Jamil Smith (29:40)

And, and, but they're not doing that either.

Jonathan V. (29:42)

Yeah, right.

Jamil Smith (29:43)

And the reason they're not doing is because I don't think there are any people like that.

Jonathan V. (29:48)

I mean, Donald Trump used to be a Democrat. So you know, there's fair.

Jamil Smith (29:51)

But you see what I'm saying, like it is a whole disinterest. They're not even trying to swap in for a new, you know, here, here's the real bad guy in this. They just want to shut the whole thing down. And I am interested to see if Republican voters tolerate that. What do you think they'll do, Tim?

Jonathan V. (30:09)

I think that a lot of them will tolerate it, but I also think that they're in for some heat because this is not, this is not. There is also a conspiracy, kind of a conservative coded conspiracy industrial media complex they already don't like. I mean, even all the way up through into like Megyn Kelly, like they don't like bamboo Bondi that much. And they're not that impressed with Bondi and Patel. And I mean, imagine if you're. There's also kind of the MAGA conspiracy world where they're upset that nobody's been arrested for the 2020 election crimes. They're like, what are these guys doing? They haven't done anything. So I think that what hurt Trump, you've walked me to where you wanted me to go, which is I think Republican voters will give him a pass. Bondi those in some hot water. And I think when your cortisol is spiking like that and Jerry Nadler is frame mogging you, you know, that's not good, that's bad.

Jamil Smith (31:04)

I would remind people that Pam Bondi was the grown up pick who reassured everyone that Donald Trump wasn't going to be that bad.

Jonathan V. (31:14)

Yeah.

Jamil Smith (31:14)

Do you remember the sigh of relief from the, from the Wall Street Journal editorial board when. Oh, thank goodness, Pam Bondi, well, she's a grown up.

Jonathan V. (31:23)

They really should have left it to be Gates. I mean, if somebody was gonna just lie to the Congress about the COVID up of sex with underage women, why not just have it be Matt Gaetz, you know?

Jamil Smith (31:38)

Right.

Jonathan V. (31:38)

If someone's gonna put on a show and start your theatrics are ridiculous, let the big forehead guy do it. He would have been better. Okay, jbl, I gotta run. I appreciate it, everybody. As mentioned at the top. Subscribe to the feed. We got a lot more coming this week, so we'll see y' all soon.