← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Certainly won't be the last”
00:46:27
Nicolle Wallace on Pam Bondi's defiant and lie-filled testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Loading summary
Transcript120 lines
- [00:00]
Host/Anchor
Now is your time to get into a new Dr. Horton home by taking advantage of its national Red Tag sales event going on right now through October 19th. Stop by any of its participating communities and find select red tag homes at Incredible Pricing. So whether you're buying your first home or looking for an upgrade, you don't want to miss the red tag sales event going on right now. Discover the Dr. Horton Difference at Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton America's Builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.
- [01:09]
Hi there everyone, It's Forager New York. It wasn't the first lie ever told before the United States Senate, and it certainly won't be the last. But what Attorney General Pam Bondi said before the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon may very well go down as one of the most brazen, most shameless, most verifiably false statements ever uttered in that setting. Quote, the two tiered system of justice is over. In fact, if Bondi's on the record testimony today serve to prove anything out in public, anything at all, it is that a two tiered system of justice has very much been operationalized is the new reality in the United States of America right now. Just ask former FBI Director Jim Comey, whose recent federal indictment, initiated mere days after a public pressure campaign, was a frequent topic of inquiry this afternoon. Again and again and again, Bondi refused to answer questions on the matter. Questions about Eric Siebert. He's the now former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He was forced to resign after he concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to indict Jim Comey. And questions about potential coordination between Donald Trump and the Department of Justice.
- [02:25]
Senator/Interviewer
Watch the night before James Comey's indictment, you had dinner with the president of the United States. Pretty intimate group actually.
- [02:35]
Pam Bondi
There were a lot of people there that night.
- [02:37]
Senator/Interviewer
That's a great picture that Comey discussed at that dinner.
- [02:40]
Pam Bondi
I love that picture. That's a great picture. And there were a lot of people there that night. I think the entire Cabinet was there.
- [02:47]
Senator/Interviewer
Did you discuss James Comey with the president of the United states. He was sitting just to your left.
- [02:53]
Pam Bondi
Well, two seats down. Yes, two seats down. And I am not going to discuss any conversations I had or not have with the president because the American public.
- [03:02]
Senator/Interviewer
Is entitled to know. Madam Attorney General, the entire cabinet took instructions from President Trump after he told you very directly to indict James Comey, which is weaponization of the Department of Justice.
- [03:20]
Host/Anchor
Her refusal to answer legitimate questions and if anything, to seem to make a mockery of the setting and the body itself and to refuse to address those questions regarding ongoing controversies at the Department of Justice wasn't just focused on the Comey prosecution. It extended to the latest reporting on Donald Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, and allegations that he accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents last year.
- [03:52]
What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI paid to Mr. Homan in a paper bag? Ev.
- [04:18]
Pam Bondi
Senator, as deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review by the FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.
- [04:33]
Host/Anchor
And that was not my question. My question was what became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag to Mr. Homan?
- [04:46]
Pam Bondi
Senator, I'd look at your facts.
- [04:48]
Host/Anchor
I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to.
- [04:50]
Pam Bondi
A very five question five FBI agents and the doj, they found no credible evidence of wrongdoing. You know, you're very concerned about money and people taking money and you rail against dark money.
- [05:03]
Host/Anchor
Wait a second, wait a second.
- [05:04]
Pam Bondi
You work with dark money groups all the time. Senator, I would be more concerned if I were you when you talk about corruption and money when you pushed for legislation that would subsidize your wife's company.
- [05:17]
Host/Anchor
The.
- [05:19]
Questions here are actually pretty specific. So having you respond with completely irrelevant far right Internet talking points really is not very helpful here.
- [05:36]
Another exhausting non answer seemingly read from some sort of opposition research book that didn't meet the caliber of something on a congressional campaign from a sitting attorney general today who was far more concerned with launching those ad hominem attacks on Democratic lawmakers, exclusively the ones asking the tough questions than she was in doing what her job says she should do, which is answer questions in that setting and what she said she would do, which is to end a two tiered system of justice. It's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. MSNBC justice and intelligence correspondent Kendallane is here. Also joining us, former top official at The Department of Justice. MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman's here. And former Democratic senator MSNBC political analyst Claremia Caskill is here. Clarem, I start with you because I think you're the only person here who may have recognized her attacks as just run of the mill sort of flunky campaign level oppo that was in her binder along with a bunch of prepared statements. I've never seen that before, have you?
- [06:43]
Claire McCaskill
Oh, no, I've never seen anything like this by a low level witness off the street, much less the Attorney General, the sitting Attorney General of the United States. And you're right, it's low level oppo bs. But here's the thing that's stunning about her testimony today. I am shocked that no Republican on the committee spoke up when the Attorney General of the United States spent the entire time of her questioning by Democratic senators screaming, refusing to answer basic oversight questions and attacking them with ad hominem, not factual attacks that were personal in nature. And no one said a word on the Republican side, especially the chairman of the committee, Chuck Grassley. This never would have been allowed to go on when I was in the United States Senate. There would have been a bipartisan effort to stop that witness in their tracks. That's how far the Republican Party in the United States Senate has fallen. And the members of that Judiciary Committee with an R behind their names, they are single handedly, brick by brick undoing the power of the Senate to have oversight in one of the most legendary committees in history. And they are permanently impacting the ability of our democracy to function as our founding fathers intended. And it was a shocking display and it was so stupid and ugly and frankly embarrassing. I'm really surprised no one spoke up.
- [08:28]
Senator/Interviewer
Not one of them.
- [08:29]
Host/Anchor
Kendallane, you were monitoring this for us. I guess I would point out the mission was obviously to vamp for Fox News clips. She probably scored high marks for that endeavor. I'm sure she'll look great tonight. But Trump is sitting at a 37% approval rating and one of the most unpopular things he's doing is weaponizing the Department of Justice. 70% of Americans oppose sort of a vague question about weaponization. And the number goes higher when you put in indicting Jim Comey, indicting these people. He doesn't even bring along all of the people who voted for him less than one year ago. What was this about, in your view?
- [09:14]
It was about not answering questions, Nicole, first and foremost, because these were questions that were that the answers to which I think really put the Trump administration in A very difficult position. Why did you fire the U.S. attorney who wouldn't bring the case? Did Tom Homan take the money? These are questions they don't want to answer. And so the strategy was, as you said, to read from an oppo sheet and to attack each senator. And, you know, you could debate about whether the Democrats had a good strategy to rebut that. I personally don't think that they did, although some did better than others. But you're right. Claire is absolutely right. We've never seen anything like this before. Christopher Wray used to go up there and get railed by the Republicans on the Hill. They would attack him left, right and center, making baseless allegations. And he would just sit there and take it because that's what he thought was his role as FBI director. Not to fight back, not to read from an oppo sheet. And no doubt he could have as the FBI director. But one of the most striking things to me about today was that there were a lot of questions that she could hide behind. That's a pending investigation or I don't talk about personnel matters. But one thing thatone place where that does not apply is the Tom Homan matter, because that is a closed investigation. There's nothing pending about it. And so it's hard for me to imagine that she doesn't know the factual answer to the question of did he actually accept the money from an FBI undercover and what happened to that money? I mean, if she's seen the files, if she's talked to anybody who's reviewed that case, she knows the answer to that question and she refused to answer it today. And she has no, really no good reason to answer it and not to answer it rather. And that is a fundamental question that I think we can all agree, like the American public has a right to that information. This person who's wielding enormous power in the government right now, according to our sources and according to a document we've seen, accepted $50,000 from undercover FBI agents in a sting as part of a corruption investigation. The Justice Department dropped that investigation. They're telling us it was reviewed and there was no crime found. But they won't release any of the documents and they won't even tell us the basic facts. Did he keep the money? And if he did, did he pay taxes on it? So that, to me, was the most extraordinary moment of an extraordinary day.
- [11:33]
I mean, Ken, two follow up questions for you on that. I mean, I think they did more than what you just articulated today. Fox News is reporting that the FBI fired and Dismantled the entire corruption squad. It was ostensibly about phone records being swept up in the investigation of the insurrection on January 6th. But they don't just excuse their own. They destroy the law enforcement capability that might damage their own. What did they say about that?
- [12:02]
If anything, this was Nicole. An insidious triumph of right wing propaganda because Chuck Grassley releases this redacted FBI document that shows that the FBI, as part of the Jack Smith investigation, obtained the tolling records to and from records that are the property of the phone company and that are obtainable by a subpoena. Not a warrant, not a court order, but a subpoena. The FBI obtained those in the course of the investigating the insurrection. But Grassley puts that out, right wing media explodes in rage and calls this spying on Republican senators. And by the time it gets to the hearing, when sort of mainstream reporters like me are just trying to figure out what is this all about and what's the context? Here you have senators saying that they were wiretapped, which was just a fantasy. That's not what happened. What this was was Jack Smith trying to figure out who Donald Trump was calling when he was trying to delay the certification. This is, according to my sources, of the 2020 election. He was talking to members of Congress. And it wasn't just he has multiple cell phones. He goes through intermediaries. And there was a reference to this in the Smith report. He talks about Trump calling members of Congress, and he also talks about consulting with Public Integrity about the proper way to investigate that and how to obtain documents. So this is perfectly legitimate. These senators were not targeted. They were not under investigation. They were essentially witnesses in this investigation. But they've made it into this fake scandal, and now it's having real world repercussions because, as you said, Kash Patel just announced not long ago that he's firing FBI agents and disbanding a corruption squad. This is not the first corruption squad they disbanded, by the way. They had previously disbanded one in the Washington field office whose job was to investigate corruption in Congress, ironically enough. So, yeah, you're absolutely right. These FBI agents are losing their jobs because they did what they were asked to do in a lawfully predicated investigation. And another corruption squad looking at public corruption doesn't exist. And a lot of people think that right now no one in the FBI or the Justice Department is examining public corruption unless it's something that Donald Trump wants them to look at.
- [14:15]
Right? And then even if it's something Donald Trump wants them to look at, and they investigated and found Nothing a case is brought anyway seems to be what has been operationalized at the department. I have one last question for you, Kyndilanian. Are you able to find out through your sources or through the press office who created the opposition research book that Pam Bondi was reading from? And I ask that because I'm probably the only one who has sullied herself in the dark underbelly of politics by both working on the creation of opposition research in my years on campaigns and sort of arming policymakers with it. It's my understanding that that is a clear violation of the Hatch act to have a politically fabricated document created by a government taxpayer funded staffer. And so I wonder if the Department of Justice would answer a call from you today about who created that book she was reading from with attacks on White House on his wife's company. I mean, that is opposition research straight up. And it is a clear violation of the Hatch act to be created by a government employee.
- [15:19]
I can certainly try to get an answer to that question. I'm not confident that I will, Nicole. And of course it's always possible that they brought in outside political consultants not paid for by the government to produce that material. But as we've all seen in recent days, the Hatch act doesn't seem to be operative anymore. You've seen messages on government websites that are clearly political. You've seen government officials of all stripes making political attacks while they're on government time. So the Hatch act, unfortunately, and all of our laws are only as good as the law enforcement officers who are willing to enforce them. And that particular statute does not seem to be enforced right now.
- [15:59]
And Andrew, that's a great segue. I mean, because it's about them, right? I mean, the Attorney General of the United States, America, peddled political propaganda in a binder that was in front of her at a Senate oversight committee. These folks make decisions, the Democrats and the Republicans on the committee, about her budget, about her operating funds, and she gets to set the policy for better or for worse as to the consequences of our elections. But what she doesn't get to do is break all the laws in public without at least being called out. And for better or for worse, I know they watch if you want to call us and tell us who created the opposition research that the attorney general read from today, lines are open, as they say. But Andrew Weissman, I thought today was pretty tectonic in broadcasting the I don't give an F about any of you senators of the Democratic and Republican Party because to Claire's point they looked complicit and or weak and that the rule of law as you've known it before today is over.
- [17:02]
Senator/Interviewer
Well, that is the through line of your discussion with Ken and Claire. So you know, you have the Attorney General saying, you know, the rule of law applies to everyone, no one's above the law. But you know, let's just take the Hatch Act. You have what appears to be over and over again this administration violating the Hatch act, as Ken pointed out, their out of office messaging says it's the Democrats fault that is in violation of the Hatch Act. That's just one example. But they have launched a hatchet investigation and they have said it publicly of Jack Smith. So how is that the rule of law in this country? How is that treating them the same? How is it the rule of law to Claire's point, that you don't actually believe in oversight? One of the responsibilities of the executive is to go to these committees and to answer questions is not to attack them, is to answer questions. Of course there'll be some questions you can't answer for various reasons, but you're not sitting there sparring with them. That is anathema to the rule of law. To Ken's point about getting rid of public integrity and public corruption squads, there is no, no one is above the law. If you don't investigate public corruption, you don't investigate white collar crime. To sit there and mouth the truism of no one is above the law is meaningless if you don't actually have the agents investigating a whole swath of people who you don't want to investigate, whether it's Tom Homans or a bunch of rich contributors who are supporters of yours, but you do want to investigate perceived enemies. So to me this is all of a piece which is the truism that oh no one is above the law and we're not. Weaponizing is just words when you look at what they're actually doing, which is creating a complete two tier system of justice in this country.
- [19:07]
Host/Anchor
It seemed too, Andrew, that the efforts to deny reality, at least around the Homan case, where to Ken's point, there's a tape, I mean a lot of the facts aren't in dispute. When the first reports that Ken and Carol filed who broke the story, none of the facts were in dispute. Now there's been a papering over propagandizing effort, so Lord knows what is the current line on that. But she seemed to sort of walk back from the facts as they were accepted by all parties when the story first broke.
- [19:40]
Senator/Interviewer
Yeah. So let me, I want to just dig deeper into her answer, which is she said, oh, but nobody found a sort of current law being violated so we closed it. That is not the issue. It is true that what's been reported and if you took this bag of cash promising that when he became a public official he was going to do favors, that means that you are thinking he is going to become a public official, which he in fact did. And you want to see whether he was then going to carry out what he promised. And so it may be that he didn't commit a violation at the moment that he took the cash. But nobody, no good agent or prosecutor, nobody experienced would close the investigation. Then you would wait to see what happens. That was the question I would ask her is like why would you possibly close that? And there's only one reason. If the reporting is accurate, there's no reason to think. It isn't that you would close that investigation as because you have a two tier system here. And if you really thought that he was innocent, wouldn't Mr. Hummings be the first person, the very first person to say release the tape, let everyone see what happens because I'm innocent. And that is not what is happening. He has not called for that and the Department of Justice has not offered that.
- [21:01]
Host/Anchor
I have some of that line of questioning. I'm going to show it to all of you. Kendallanian has been working overtime today to help all of us. Thank you for starting us off. Claire and Andrew, stick around. Ahead for us, more of combative Pam Bondi running out of things to say when confronted about a potentially explosive allegation involving Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. We'll show you that moment as well. And later in the broadcast, National Guard troops from Texas have arrived in the Chicago area as federal agents continue a tense and sometimes brutal crackdown in largely immigrant communities around Chicago. Jacob Soborough is live on the ground for us there. He'll bring us the latest. We'll have all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [21:44]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
Netcredit is here to say yes because you're more than a credit score. Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner banks and service by Netcredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn more@netcredit.com partners NetCredit credit to the.
- [21:59]
Claire McCaskill
People at Maurices we're all about great jeans. You know, the ones that fit you.
- [22:05]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
Just right, the ones that go from.
- [22:06]
Claire McCaskill
Work days to weekends and everywhere in between the ones that simply make you feel good. Because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them.
- [22:16]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
With 25 sizes, five lengths and six denim brands, you've got options and fit experts in every store. To make jean shopping easier, find great jeans starting at $29.90 in stores and.
- [22:28]
Senator/Interviewer
At Marisa's.com at Designer Shoe Warehouse.
- [22:32]
Host/Anchor
We believe that shoes are an important.
- [22:34]
Senator/Interviewer
Part of, well, everything from first steps.
- [22:37]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
To first dates, from all nighters to.
- [22:40]
Senator/Interviewer
All time personal bests, from building pillow.
- [22:43]
Host/Anchor
Forts to building a life for all time. The big and small moments that make.
- [22:47]
Claire McCaskill
Up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes.
- [22:52]
Senator/Interviewer
Find a shoe for every you from.
- [22:54]
Host/Anchor
Brands you love at brag worthy prices.
- [22:57]
Claire McCaskill
At your DSW store or dsw.com.
- [23:02]
Host/Anchor
We'Re back with Andrew and Claire. Claire, let me show you this moment that Andrew's talking about and Ken talked about about the existence of a tape with Mr. Homan on it. Allegedly.
- [23:13]
Senator/Interviewer
You know there's a tape, right, with Mr. Homan. I mean, first of all, is there a tape that has audio and video of the transfer of the 50,000?
- [23:23]
Pam Bondi
You would have to talk to Director Patel about that.
- [23:26]
Senator/Interviewer
No, I'm talking to you.
- [23:29]
Pam Bondi
I don't know the answer, Senator.
- [23:31]
Senator/Interviewer
You do know the answer.
- [23:32]
Host/Anchor
You call me a liar in her vest. Nobody puts baby in the corner voice. Claire. The whole idea of Trump operating with actual immunity and being so liberal with his pardons is that they could actually answer the questions like that's what they're supposed to do. That wouldn't hurt them at all politically. It might actually help them. But this whole doublespeak isn't even strong enough. This whole don't ask me, it's almost like an Abbott and Costello who's on first shtick. She's doing this is. And I know we talk about how far we've fallen. This was embarrassing even for maga.
- [24:14]
Claire McCaskill
Well, first of all, with respect to Senator Welch, he should have immediately said you, yes, you are lying or you're the most incompetent attorney general that's ever held the job. Because if you've got a powerful person in your administration who was part of an undercover sting and you haven't bothered to find out whether or not there's a tape. Talk about malpractice. Talk about somebody who doesn't know what they're doing. And here's the thing. I mean we've talked about this $50,000. I want to remind everybody that's taxpayer money. That's $50,000 of taxpayers hard earned dollars that they gave to Tom Holman and they refused to say what happened to it. I mean, they want to talk about cutting the budget and firing federal officials. They won't even tell the United States Senate Judiciary Committee what happened to the taxpayers 50 grand that the FBI gave to Tom Homan. That is just such basic oversight. The idea in a closed investigation. She thinks she has no obligation to answer that and that none of the Republicans, Lindsey Graham and all those Harvard and Yale educated lawyers on the other side of the dais, the Republicans felt no need to follow up and say, well, really, Attorney General, we need to know what happened to the $50,000. And I think everybody ought to start asking what happened to the $50,000. I think it's a question that they must answer and it needs to get answered.
- [25:44]
Host/Anchor
I wonder, actually, let me play a little bit more of what happened. This is Senator Klobuchar. Let's watch this.
- [25:53]
Senator/Interviewer
I was going to ask you if you received advice, instruction or requests from anyone at the the White House to direct the department to engage in any investigations, prosecutorial actions, including decisions not to investigate or prosecute anyone.
- [26:09]
Pam Bondi
I'm not going to discuss any conversations.
- [26:11]
Senator/Interviewer
Okay, but then how about the truth social post on September 20, 2025, in which the president said we can't delay any longer, Pam, using your name, not bringing criminal charges are killing our reputation, his words and credibility, and then goes on to tell you to prosecute a member of this committee, to prosecute the Attorney General of New York and to prosecute James Comey. Do you consider that a directive to the Justice Department?
- [26:42]
Pam Bondi
Senator Klobuchar, President Trump is the most transparent president in American history. And I don't think he said anything that he hasn't said for years.
- [26:53]
Host/Anchor
So, Andrew Weissman, two things. They only did this because if you spend a few minutes down sort of their Magaverse and their information feedback loop, they're really only doing what they want to do. Right. So when Stephen Miller walks out to the driveway and fields questions from reporters, it's not because he believes that the press is important. It's because he's doling out that day's drivel of propaganda for the right leaning outlets. And sometimes a real journalist gets to ask him a question and he revels in belittling them. I mean, that's what's happening and at this high level of this administration right now. So she's only there because she thinks this is good for her. Right. She wasn't there to Answer questions. There was no good faith on her part. There are some pictures that folks have flagged for me of the Oppo binder. It is exactly as it sounded like, an opposition research binder with information inside only about Democratic senators. But here's the deal. Her weakness and impotence and status as a puppet was revealed already through the Eric Siebert firing and resignation. He had a direct line. He's not a deep state actor. He's not a liberal Democrat. He's the son in law of Richard Cullen, who's the most senior Republican advisor to the Republican governor of Virginia. And he had a direct line inside Pam Bondi's office and her closest deputies. And she tried to keep him in his job and failed because she wasn't strong enough. He didn't want to bring a case against Jim Comey. Pam Law Siebert's gone. And now Lindsey Halligan has charged Comey or has brought two charges against Jim Comey to a grand jury. It is possible that a jury sees that case and convicts him. That is always possible. We won't prejudge what a jury will do. But Bill Barr writes in his book that, quote, no one at DOJ thought there was anything there. John Durham, who spent three and a half years and $7 million reached the same conclusion. What Pam Bondi did today, she didn't have to do, but she showed the world how feckless she is. And I wonder why you think she did that.
- [28:57]
Senator/Interviewer
Well, I really do think Ken hit the nail on the head, which is, I mean, there are not good answers to these questions on the James Comey issue. The Department of Justice has a strong and valid rule that you do not charge someone unless you have a reasonable belief and good faith in belief that you are going to be able to convict that person after trial beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the conviction will be sustained on appeal. When the grand jury votes 14 to 9, meaning they barely had the sort of majority that was necessary of 12, only based on probable cause, when they barely could vote, that you obviously aren't going to meet, at least at this stage, unless they get new evidence, they obviously aren't going to meet that standard. And so she looks like the puppet that she is. And she didn't stand up to Trump. She didn't say, I'm going to uphold the rule of law here. She didn't actually have the DOJ rules enforced, which is that you don't indict somebody unless you think you can win at trial. So that clearly means that you're going to just see that, that sort of what happens in the future. You're going to see this happening over and over again where you indict people, but they all get acquitted. And that is exactly why DOJ has that rule. So that doesn't happen. And she is basically signaling that she's fine with that and she is not answering any questions. But I do think the big picture here, what we are seeing, is the complete collapse of a branch of government. We know what the executive branch is, right? We know that they're going to push and they aren't taking the rules seriously, either their own internal rules or the laws seriously. And that's why courts keep on finding against them over and over again, including Republican judges appointed by Donald Trump in the first term. But I think what you're really seeing here is the complete collapse of the sort of Republican Party in Congress from in any way standing up for this separate branch of government. I mean, to me that was really the story. You know who Pam Bondi is, you know who Donald Trump is. It was really surprising. I agree with Claire. When I was in government, the Judiciary Committee, particularly in the Senate, was sort of, you know, a hallowed place. That's where you expected there was going to be an intelligent conversation with people really trying to get answers to meaningful oversight.
- [31:36]
Host/Anchor
I mean, look, I'm not as idealistic as you two are. I think 2007 is calling and they want their idealism back. But even, even a year ago it was a politically oriented body and 70% of Americans are turned off by political prosecutions. And so even if it isn't what it once was, it is right now, today, based on polling in the Wall street journal, unpopular with 70% of Americans, including I think more than 40% of self described MAGA Republicans to politicize prosecution. So if not the whole idea that the founders had about three branches of government, then public opinion polling in the Wall Street Journal, you'd think one of those would wake them up. But no, you guys stick around because there's more. When we come back, the petition that could force a vote on the Epstein files being made public. That vote in Congress needs just one more signature to be considered. That might be why Speaker Mike Johnson is stalling on swag in the one Democrat who could provide said signature. We get to talk to her next.
- [32:45]
Netcredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon.
- [32:51]
Senator/Interviewer
As the same day.
- [32:52]
Host/Anchor
Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner.
- [32:54]
Senator/Interviewer
Banks and serviced by NetCredit application subject.
- [32:56]
Host/Anchor
To review and approval.
- [32:57]
Senator/Interviewer
Learn more at netcredit.com partners. NetCredit Credit to the People.
- [33:02]
Host/Anchor
It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong wrong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams and for comprehensive identity protection, LifeLock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com Specialoffer terms apply at Maurices we're.
- [33:33]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
All about great jeans.
- [33:34]
Claire McCaskill
You know, the ones that fit you just right.
- [33:37]
Host/Anchor
The ones that go from work days.
- [33:39]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
To weekends and everywhere in between.
- [33:41]
Claire McCaskill
The ones that simply make you feel good because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them.
- [33:48]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
With 25 sizes, five lengths and six denim brands, you've got options and fit experts in every store. To make jean shopping easier, find great jeans starting at $29.90 in stores and.
- [34:00]
Claire McCaskill
At Marisa's.com.
- [34:03]
Host/Anchor
Silence speaks volumes, doesn't it? Combative Attorney General Pam Bondi reading from her oppo book before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Sudd went silent and she was asked about one thing. Donald Trump's relationship with dead sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after her attempt at deflection fell flat. Here's what happened when she was pressed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse over whether or not there are incriminating photos of Donald Trump in the hidden Epstein files.
- [34:32]
There's been public reporting that Jeffrey Epstein showed people photos of President Trump with half naked young women. Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in their search of Jeffrey Epstein, safe or premises or otherwise? Have you seen any such thing?
- [34:54]
Pam Bondi
You know, Senator Whitehouse, you sit here and make salacious remarks once again trying to slander President Trump left and right when you're the one who was taking money from one of Epstein's closest confidants. I believe I could be wrong. Correct me, Reid Hoffman, who was with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions, and the senator sitting right next to you tried to block the flight logs from being released, yet you're grilling me on President Trump and some photograph with Epstein? Come on.
- [35:28]
Host/Anchor
The question is, did the FBI find those photographs that have been discussed publicly by a witness who claimed Jeffrey Epstein showed them to him? You don't know anything about that? Okay.
- [35:49]
Bodi's spoken though about this before in her own comments about the Epstein case. Came back to haunt Her.
- [35:57]
This is something Donald Trump has talked about. The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?
- [36:05]
Pam Bondi
It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump.
- [36:10]
Senator/Interviewer
Why did you publicly claim to have the Epstein client list waiting for your review and then produce nothing relevant to that claim?
- [36:17]
Pam Bondi
Our memo on Epstein clearly points out that there was no client list.
- [36:23]
Host/Anchor
So clearly one of those two statements is a lie. Let her decide in the end which one it is. And what would settle this issue once and for all is the bipartisan. One of the only bipartisan efforts in Congress right now, the bipartisan Epstein discharge petition. Now, that would force the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein files and they'd have the COVID of a bipartisan piece of legislation. That petition is right now, today. One signature shy of the 2018 votes needed to force a full House vote on a bill to Release the Epstein. 218. Release the files. Congresswoman elect Adelitha Grijalva of Arizona is set to be the 218th signature needed when she is sworn in. Her swearing in was delayed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who canceled votes for the week. But here's what he had to say when asked about it today.
- [37:19]
Earlier this year, you swore in two.
- [37:21]
Senator/Interviewer
Republican members during a pro forma session. So why not swear in Adelina Grijalva, who was elected two weeks ago during the pro forma session?
- [37:29]
Host/Anchor
Does it have to do with her.
- [37:30]
Senator/Interviewer
218Th signature on the discharge petition, the Epstein discharge? No, it has nothing to do with that at all. We will swear her in when everybody gets back. It's a ceremonial duty. Look, we'll schedule it, I guess, as soon as she wants.
- [37:45]
Host/Anchor
We'll schedule it as soon as she wants. An hour after he said, quote, we'll schedule it as soon as she wants. His staffers walk that back. I want to bring in Representative Elect Adaly Tigrihava of Arizona. Congratulations. And when you heard that he said he would schedule your swearing in whenever you want, did you reach out to his office?
- [38:11]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
Yes, we did. We sent a letter yesterday saying, give me a date. Just any. Just give me a date. Confirm it. And I, you know, I'm seriously concerned with the precedent that this, that this delay in my swearing in is setting for future races across the country, which is, what if the speaker doesn't want to. He doesn't have to swear us in. And he can't just ignore the will of the people. Our oath of office is one that I take Seriously. And it just continues to be this sort of, you know, ball that he keeps kicking down the road.
- [38:45]
Host/Anchor
As we are talking right now, do you have any idea what the window is on when you might be sworn in?
- [38:54]
Senator/Interviewer
No.
- [38:54]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
And it's so frustrating because everywhere I go, I have people in our community, in our district, over 10,000 federal workers that are unsure when their next check is coming. And they want me to fight for them and they want to know what resources are available from our office. I don't have an office. I have in D.C. my placard is literally there. My name is there where my dad used to be. It's so special. And I am standing outside with locked doors because at this point, now that the shutdown is happening, I can't even get into the building without being escorted in by another member's staffers.
- [39:32]
Host/Anchor
What is the process? Or can you take us inside the negotiation with the Speaker's office to try to secure a date or a time for your swearing in?
- [39:43]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
I know Leader Jeffries has been reaching out directly. So when that comment was made, he said, okay, Adarita is ready. Let's get her on a flight. You give us the date, confirm it, that it will happen tomorrow. And he just walked that back. And so, you know, the bedrock of our democracy is free, unobstructed elections. If Speaker Johnson believes this, as I do, then he will quit toying with our democratic process and swear me in.
- [40:10]
Host/Anchor
And the reporter there, I believe that was a journalist from CNN asking the speaker why Republican members elect were sworn in immediately and you haven't been, makes the partisan nature of refusing to schedule your swearing in pretty clear. Is there any explanation other than partisanship from his office that you've heard?
- [40:34]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
Well, if you look at even Representative Walkinshaw, who was elected about three weeks ago. Three or now, is it four? Three weeks ago today and sworn in and under 24 hours. The same with Bretonis and Fine. The only difference is Waukenshaw Congress was in session, and with Bretonus and Fine, they run a pro forma, which is what I was at last week standing there on the House floor waiting to be sworn in, and we were gaveled in and out without any consideration of even hearing any motions from the floor.
- [41:06]
Host/Anchor
Is there any information that you understand to be holding this up other than your 218th vote on the discharge petition for the Epstein file?
- [41:16]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
You know, I really have consistently in my life tried to come up with, like, what is the most plausible reason not, you know, conspiracy theory? Because that would. That sort of came out really early on. But this is really the only thing I can point to, and perhaps this time is giving Speaker Johnson an opportunity to try to lobby the other four Republicans who have signed on to try to convince them to take their name off. That's the only thing I can think of because the only people losing out here are the constituents from Arizona CD7 who elected me to do a job and Speaker Johnson is now allowing me to do that.
- [41:53]
Host/Anchor
Yeah, there's been some reporting that maximum political pressure is being applied to the Republicans, which is interesting because 81% of all Americans believe that Donald Trump is hiding something in the Epstein files and that that is why they haven't been released. So there's certainly not public pressure to keep them hidden. It's just Trump and Johnson applying pressure to them. Do you have some sympathy in a weird way for the pressure that those Republicans might be under?
- [42:22]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
Absolutely not. Who I have sympathy for are the victims of sexual assault that are in these files and the fact that they deserve justice and they deserve to have their voice out there and the people who perpetrated these crimes deserve to have legal consequences for what they did. That's who deserves our empathy and advocacy right now.
- [42:44]
Host/Anchor
And the survivors have been doing some of the work as well, spending time on Capitol Hill regardless of political affiliation. I hope you will keep us posted if circumstances change. We'd love to talk to you again, Representative Elect Adelitigalva again, congratulations and thank you for joining us today.
- [43:07]
Representative Elect Adelitha Grijalva
Thank you so much for having me.
- [43:09]
Host/Anchor
I want to show all of you how this went with Pam Bondi when she was confronted with questions about the Epstein files and investigation. We'll do that on the other side of a break. Stay with us.
- [43:27]
Senator/Interviewer
So who gave the order to flag records related to President Trump?
- [43:34]
Pam Bondi
To flag records for President Trump to.
- [43:37]
Senator/Interviewer
Flag any records which included his name.
- [43:41]
Pam Bondi
I'm not going to discuss anything about that with you, Senator.
- [43:44]
Senator/Interviewer
Eventually you're going to have to answer for your conduct in this. You won't do it today, but eventually you will.
- [43:51]
Host/Anchor
I mean, I'm back to my earlier question. It's a mystery to me why she was there at all. Claire, this story, though, is one. You know, we talked about 70% of Americans who opposed political prosecutions, 81% of Americans think they're involved in a cover up at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, the White House and the FBI. These are the facts about the documents as have been reported by this news organization and countless others. And this is what happened today. Durbin, the top Democrat on Senate Judiciary asked each of the Trump administration officials to respond to information received by his office that suggested FBI personnel were specifically instructed to flag records mentioning Trump. Quote, my office was told that these personnel were instructed to flag any records in which Trump was mentioned. Why were they told to flag the records? And he got stonewalled the whole journey. That Pam Bondi goes on, from saying on Fox News, they're on my desk, the client list is on my desk, to an unsigned memo in the middle of the night on a Friday summer night. That's it, folks. After hauling all the right wing influencers into the White House and giving them white binders that look remarkably similar to her oppo book today, is because they find Trump's name in the files and the thousand FBI agents that go through them have the job of finding and flagging it. Why, Claire, is this being, again, so brazenly rewritten when all these facts are already out there?
- [45:19]
Claire McCaskill
It's really a head scratcher, isn't it? I mean, this stuff's going to come out. She's going to file. Johnson can deny her constituents representation for only so long, and she's going to sign that discharge petition. And Republicans, a lot of them will vote for it once it comes to the floor. So it is hard, hard to figure out. I was thinking when she was answering that question, and I think Andrew will back me up here. When I was a courtroom prosecutor and I had a witness on the stand and they looked the way she looked when he asked that question, what was flashing through her brain was her telling the FBI agents and Cash Patel to go through those records and flag Donald Trump's name. That was what. And that was that pause you saw. And you know what? Juries see that pause and the American people see that pause. And she can come back with yelling and snark and ugly all she wants. It doesn't change the fact that she lied about there not being a list of clients. She's lying about there nothing being in that file that is important to the victims of these crimes. And I do think they're going to be found out. And by the way, you know, all the stuff they're doing right now, I mean, they're prosecuting Comey for lying in front of the Senate. I hope she tries that shirt on and likes how it fits.
- [46:38]
Host/Anchor
Andrew, I wonder. I've learned so much about this story that I didn't know before. Trump came back and went back on a campaign promise, a promise that brought along a lot of the support he garnered in the manosphere, like potent conspiracy theories, or I guess unlike a lot of the conspiracy theories they peddle, the brutal truth here is that they believed the truth before they peddled the lies. And when they believed the truth, they said things like, put on your big boy pants and tell us who the pedophiles are. That's Kash Patel's most pointed line. And House Republicans about doing just what Mike Johnson is preventing Congress from doing, which is passing legislation to release the files. What do you see with sort of your prosecutor and investigator eyes in terms of the upcoming twists and turns here?
- [47:37]
Senator/Interviewer
Well, to Claire's point, this is one where her silence and saying I'm not answering speaks volumes. Why wouldn't you, if the answer is no, why wouldn't you say that? I mean, to me it's sort of plain that the answer would have to be yes. Otherwise, why wouldn't you just say, well, of course that didn't happen. By the same token, at this point, they are doing so much to obstruct the people of the United States, seeing the full scope of what Jeffrey Epstein, a sexual predator, and Ghislaine Maxwell were up to so much that they're willing to deny the absolute right to vote of a representative elect. That's how far they're going. That is denying a constitutional right just so that you can protect whatever is in those files. And you have to say to yourself in common sense, if there wasn't something really damaging in there, why would you go to this length and the same thing to your clip with Senator Whitehouse if the answer to the question is that those photos did not exist, why wouldn't you say that? And so the more that they fight, and this is something I think Claire will know when you see a witness on the stand who fights with the and is refusing to give answers and refuses to even answer or just keeps on sort of battling with the questioner, you know that there's a, there's a there, there. And to me, this is all going to blow up when it's going to happen that we will at some point see those files and these people will have to be held to account in terms of being on the side of Jeffrey Epstein and really hiding what is in those files from the American public.
- [49:40]
Host/Anchor
Andrew Weissman and Claire McGoskill, thank you for spending the hour with me. Coming up next in the next hour of Deadline, White House A tense atmosphere right now in Chicago as the first National Guard troops arrive. Jacob Sobroff is on the ground there, and he'll join us live after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [50:01]
It's Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report port phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, LifeLock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected with a 30 day free trial@lifelock.com Specialoffer terms apply.