Congress Spars with Bondi Over Epstein Files

Summary

The Beat with Ari Melber: "Congress Spars with Bondi Over Epstein Files"

Date: February 12, 2026
Host: Ari Melber (MS NOW)
Guests: Professor Melissa Murray, Pam Bondi, Michelle Goldberg, Brian Lanza, Leslie Caldwell
Main Theme: Congressional Hearing on the Epstein Files—Accountability, Redactions, and the DOJ’s Conduct

---

Episode Overview

This episode covers the explosive congressional hearing featuring Attorney General Pam Bondi, focusing on the release and handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Ari Melber dissects the contentious interactions, the lingering questions about redactions shielding powerful men, and examines whether there is genuine accountability for Epstein’s survivors. The show also explores broader systemic failures in democracy and law enforcement under the Trump administration, including DOJ weaponization and attempts to prosecute political opponents.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Explosive Congressional Hearing

• Pam Bondi’s Testimony: Attorney General Pam Bondi faces aggressive questioning over DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files, particularly the widespread redaction of names, the lack of full transparency, and the perceived disregard for survivor justice.
• Redactions and Accountability: Lawmakers and survivors challenge Bondi on redactions that appear to shield powerful co-conspirators, questioning if these were legal or abused to protect elites (01:00–03:36).
• Survivors’ Presence: Epstein survivors attended the hearing, symbolically protesting with shirts reading “The truth is redacted,” highlighting public frustration (04:41).

2. Bondi’s Defensive and Combative Approach

• Refusal to Directly Answer: Bondi often dodges direct questions, deflects blame to previous administrations, filibusters, and sometimes grows combative with committee members (03:36–04:41, 06:24–09:49, 11:21–12:17).
• Disrespect to Congress: Professor Murray describes the hearing as “bonkers,” likening Bondi’s behavior to a “housewives reunion” in its chaos and lack of decorum (15:59).

3. The Substance: What Do the Epstein Files Reveal?

• Unredacted Revelations: Over three million files have been forced out, countering Bondi’s previous claims that nothing significant remained. Lawmakers raise the discrepancy in mentions of Trump within the available data (06:24).
• New Admissions: High-profile Trump figures like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admitted under pressure to previously denied contacts with Epstein after files were released (07:48–08:17).
• Inner Circle and Legal Action: Of Epstein’s identified “inner circle,” only Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted, while others remain unindicted or only lightly pursued (14:21).

4. Broader Failures of the Justice System & Democracy

• Private vs. Public Accountability: Professor Murray draws parallels to post-Jan 6th accountability, highlighting that sometimes private organizations/wider society act faster than politicized DOJ (17:55–18:58).
• Politicization and Stonewalling: The show repeatedly points out DOJ’s failure to deliver on transparency, its politicization under Trump, and Bondi’s “stonewalling” to protect the administration (21:21–22:49).
• Comparison to Other Democracies: Michelle Goldberg contrasts U.S. impunity with the UK’s robust accountability, where even indirect ties to Epstein can end a political career (41:36).

5. DOJ Weaponization & Grand Jury Rebuke

• Attempted Political Indictments: Trump’s DOJ attempts to indict six Democratic lawmakers for speech—a chilling parallel to authoritarian tactics—are rebuked by a federal grand jury (25:50–30:15).
• Former DOJ Official’s View: Leslie Caldwell emphasizes the breakdown of prosecutorial standards, noting this “devastating” shift towards a DOJ doing “the President’s bidding” (30:15–33:02).
• Citizen Juries as Guardrails: Melber underscores the importance of grand juries and regular citizens as democracy’s remaining “guardrails” (29:40–33:02).

6. Ongoing Damages & Media Perception

• Gaslighting and Public Outrage: Joe Rogan’s reaction to official denials about Epstein’s network is highlighted, showing even Trump’s allies are disturbed by the DOJ’s spin (37:16–37:49).
• Bondi and Trump’s Media Strategy: Brian Lanza (Trump campaign alum) candidly admits that sustaining the “drip, drip, drip” approach is, in their view, preferable to giving the media a clear win (38:26–41:31).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

The Hearing’s Tension and Bondi’s Stonewall

• Melissa Murray to Bondi:
  “Will you turn to the survivors? … It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize…”
  (03:36)

• Ari Melber:
  “She couldn’t dodge Congress forever, just as they couldn’t hide the documents forever… [The hearing] speaks to how some things are still working.”
  (01:00)

• Professor Melissa Murray:
  “I would say it was bonkers. I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite like this. Certainly from a sitting Attorney general, there were times when it felt a little bit more like a housewives reunion than congressional testimony.”
  (15:59)

• Ari Melber (on Pam Bondi’s performance):
  “This is not normal, this wasn’t constructive. She has an obligation right now, if I may be so bold as to say she’s a public servant and her salary is paid by the taxes.”
  (22:49)

Systemic Issues and Impunity

• Ari Melber:
  “Rule of law. And yet you’re reminding us a type of democracy, or at least outside pressure lands and we’re not talking about small issues. … When you talk about an insurrection like January 6th, those consequences or this level of sex trafficking, you’re talking about the truly indefensible.”
  (18:58)

• Melissa Murray:
  “This was not an opportunity for the public to learn what happened. This was grandstanding in its best form.”
  (15:59)

Bondi’s Deflection and Non-Sequiturs

• Pam Bondi (incoherent response):
  “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? Because Donald Trump. The Dow, the Dow right now is over. The Dow is over $50,000. I don’t know why you’re laughing.”
  (19:58)

• Melissa Murray:
  “She stonewalled Congress. She stonewalled the people."
  (21:21)

DOJ Weaponization and Grand Jury Checks

• Leslie Caldwell (former DOJ official):
  “The Department of Justice clearly has decided that it’s going to be at the beck and call of the President… They’re not going to win these cases because they have no evidence and juries are not going to just be bowled over…”
  (30:15–33:02)

Media and Public Reactions

• Joe Rogan clip (via Melber):
  “That’s the gaslightiest gaslighting I’ve ever heard in my life.”
  (37:43)

• Brian Lanza:
  “This is more than just a drip, drip, drip… These allegations, this evidence that exists is jarring and it’s shocking. It hurts the nerves.”
  (38:26)

• Michelle Goldberg:
  “What Donald Trump stands for is impunity. And that’s why he will protect people… who in any other sort of administration would be rendered unfit…by just the forthright lying about it.”
  (41:36)

• Melissa Murray (wryly):
  “She’s like 99 problems, but accountability ain’t 1.”
  (23:48)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment Description | |-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:00 | Ari Melber’s thematic introduction—overview of Epstein files controversy | | 03:36 | Pam Bondi challenged by lawmakers and survivors on DOJ redactions | | 06:24 | Exchange on discrepancy in Trump file mentions and DOJ file reviewers | | 07:48 | Lutnick forced to admit Epstein Island visit after file release | | 09:08 | Questions about Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer | | 11:21 | Bondi repeatedly dodges questions about co-conspirator indictments | | 14:21 | Ari Melber on DOJ’s internal list of Epstein co-conspirators and lack of indictments | | 15:59 | Professor Melissa Murray critiques Bondi’s conduct—calls hearing “bonkers” | | 17:55 | Broader context: Private vs. public accountability, post-Jan 6 parallels | | 19:58 | Pam Bondi’s non-responsive “Dow” answer, Murray and Melber call out deflections | | 21:21 | Discussion of partisan blame and the stonewalling of Congress and survivors | | 25:50 | DOJ’s failed attempt to indict opposition lawmakers; grand jury block | | 30:15 | Leslie Caldwell: unprecedented nature of DOJ actions, grand jury protections | | 33:54 | Discussion on preserving grand jury records for future justice | | 37:16 | Joe Rogan’s reaction: “gaslightiest gaslighting I’ve ever heard” | | 38:26 | Brian Lanza: DOJ’s mismanagement, the administration's media strategy | | 41:36 | Michelle Goldberg: public outrage and lack of accountability in Trump-era DOJ |

---

Conclusion

The episode unpacks a week of historic confrontation between Congress and the Trump DOJ over the Epstein files. Through sharp exchanges, heated testimony, and sharp editorial analysis, Ari Melber and his guests lay bare not only the specific injustices facing Epstein’s survivors, but also the systemic breakdowns in transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. The episode’s urgent takeaway: while some democratic guardrails—like citizen grand juries—are still holding, much of the public’s faith in government accountability is being tested by a politicized DOJ and an administration more concerned with loyalty and optics than with justice.

---

If you missed this episode, you missed a raw look at political hardball, survivor advocacy, and fault lines in American democracy—but you can catch the core arguments, tension, and takeaways here.

Transcript

[Ari Melber]

Department of Rejected Dreams.

[Melissa Murray]

If you had a dream rejected, IKEA can make it possible.

[Ari Melber]

So I always dreamed of having a man cave, but the wife doesn't like it. What if I called it a woman cave?

[Melissa Murray]

Okay, so let's not do that, but add some relaxing lighting and a comfy IKEA hofburg ottoman. And now it's a cozy retreat.

[Ari Melber]

Nice. A cozy retreat, man. Cozy retreat, sir.

[Pam Bondi]

Okay.

[Melissa Murray]

Find your big dreams, small dreams, and cozy retreat dreams in store or online at ikea.us dream the possibilities.

[Ari Melber]

Substance use disorder and addiction is so isolating.

[Pam Bondi]

And so, as a black woman in recovery, hope must be loud.

[Ari Melber]

It grows louder when you ask for help and you're vulnerable.

[Pam Bondi]

It is the thread that lets you.

[Ari Melber]

Know that no matter what happens, you will be okay.

[Michelle Goldberg]

When we learn the power of hope, recovery is possible.

[Brian Lanza]

Find out how.

[Michelle Goldberg]

@Startwithhope.Com brought to you by the National.

[Melissa Murray]

Council for Mental well Being, Shatterproof and the AD Council.

[Ari Melber]

Welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melber. We're beginning with not only fallout from the Epstein files, but accountability under oath. This was an explosive day in Washington. The Trump Attorney General, Pam Bondi, at turns was defensive, lashing out on the attack, doing talking points, even getting personal. And for all the skepticism or cynicism in our country right now, for understandable reasons, her situation being under oath, having to discuss a topic that she spent a long time trying to dodge on, and a president who tried to fight the very law she is now tasked with carrying out, all of this speaks to how some things are still working. She couldn't dodge the Congress forever, just as they couldn't hide the documents forever. The documents, of course, being the Epstein files. And the testimony comes as we have many serious questions. Why is Donald Trump in the file so many times, apart from being a public figure who is sometimes mentioned in articles, why was his name redacted repeatedly? Are all the redactions on the level or not? Will the Trump official who spent years lying about his ties to Epstein and only from these files now admitted visiting Epstein island, face any accountability? And how does all of this impact the survivors who've been through, of course, more than enough, but who've also been proven right repeatedly. Right about how the government has failed them, Right about how this process didn't work, Right about how transparency, which can be complicated. That's why we have grand jury secrecy rules and other valid ways that confidentiality matters. But transparency can be a way to get public accountability, which they didn't get, which failed them through the other, more traditional means. I mention them because not only are they, of course the victims in this long running case, but many of them chose Epstein survivors to attend this hearing today. They asked why the redaction seemed at times to mistakenly, erroneously or they question nefariously cover up information not as intended in the law, which had narrow redaction rules, for example, protecting children or minors, which no rational person or lawyer would disagree with or has disagreed with. But why instead of those narrow redactions under law, why did some redactions appear to. And now lawmakers have said after reviewing them, they did hide powerful potential co conspirators, rich and powerful men. Why were the redactions being, they ask, abused that way that led to one key moment.

[Pam Bondi]

Will you turn to the survivors? This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice is members.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Members get to ask the questions.

[Ari Melber]

The witness gets to answer in the way they want to answer.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

The attorney General.

[Pam Bondi]

That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman, because she doesn't like the answer. So Mr. Chairman, why I have asked. Didn't she asked Merrick Garland this I reclaiming my time when I will claim my time. Get in the gutter for her theatrics.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

The time belongs to. The time belongs to the gentle lady. The gentlelady has 17 seconds.

[Melissa Murray]

Thank you.

[Pam Bondi]

You're not going to answer this question, so let me just. I'll direct it. What a massive. No, I'm answering a question.

[Ari Melber]

Will you restore her time? The witnesses interrupted her.

[Pam Bondi]

I got her with this woman.

[Commercial Announcer]

Let me.

[Ari Melber]

You can see the intensity of the moment with the back and forth. The congresswoman saying this is what the survivors deserve and can you face them? The chair kind of off video. You couldn't see him trying to keep some sort of order, which happens a lot in these hearings. The survivors present and the attorney general arguing basically, if you can infer from her answer, that she didn't think she owed only the survivors something, that this goes back farther, that there are other parts of the government and other prior administrations that also bear accountability. Fact check true, because this is bigger than just the last couple years. Anyone who's followed the story knows that. And yet even if it is true that other prior government officials also bear some blame, at least according to the lawmaker there and others who've looked at this, the question is why can't the attorney General, step up now. She is the attorney general. Now, survivors, some were seen wearing shirts that say the truth is redacted. Redacted, redacted. Epstein survivors are still waiting. Release the redacted files. This is a kind of visual cue that is recognizable from the hearing room to the Internet to the memes, because so many people across the spectrum have been outraged by the way this Trump DOJ has redacted. A Democrat who saw some of the unredacted files has said there were over a million mentions of Trump, which is far more than in the publicly released files, which mention Trump a far fewer number of times. And if some of the million mentions were duplicates, or as I mentioned in fairness, references to a public person, Trump, a longtime celebrity and later a politician, There is still a huge gap in big questions. Here was Pam Bondi.

[Pam Bondi]

I believe his name has appeared countless times in the documents, but there are.

[Ari Melber]

How many people were released?

[Pam Bondi]

If I could finish, I'm going to read you the stats.

[Ari Melber]

I just simply asked whether or not it was true that it was 1,000 folks who were assigned that task. Were those reports accurate?

[Pam Bondi]

There are more than 500 attorneys and reviewers. I cannot give you an exact number.

[Ari Melber]

That is the back and forth. Remember, Pam Bondi is the Attorney General who said publicly and in writing there were no more files of significance. There were no more files that were proper to release. We are here over 3 million files later, and she has been proven wrong about that by any standard. Take even people serving in the current government. Trump. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. It is only these files which Trump and Bondi tried to hide that have forced him to admit that he was lying when he said he cut off contact with Epstein. We were reporting on this before he even was forced to admit it. Many outlets, of course, as I've mentioned, and we credit and source them, have been reporting and pulling on these threads. He visited the Epstein island in 2012. Epstein had already been by then a publicly convicted sex offender, which undercuts his prior claim.

[Pam Bondi]

Attorney General Bondi, yes or no?

[Melissa Murray]

Has the Justice Department asked Secretary Lutnick about his ties to Epstein?

[Michelle Goldberg]

Excuse me.

[Pam Bondi]

Secretary Lutnick has addressed those ties himself.

[Ari Melber]

I'm asking you, has the Justice Department.

[Melissa Murray]

Specifically asked Secretary Lutnick about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein?

[Pam Bondi]

He has addressed those ties himself.

[Ari Melber]

It'S true. But when he first addressed those ties, he lied. And he held onto that lie for many years. And it's only this week, after the files were forcibly pushed out under the law, that he had to address it again. And say he was lying and admit he visited. Bondi also was asked about Maxwell, who got that prison upgrade which occurred after Bondi's number two, Todd Blanche, conducted a very unusual interview with Maxwell. You don't have to be an expert on any of this to wonder why someone who was serving for such heinous crimes would ever get a prison upgrade. Especially right after that interview, which led many to ask it was causal or some sort of reward. The Bureau of Prisons, which is under the doj, and transferred, Maxwell reports in the end to the Attorney General.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Who ordered her to be transferred to the.

[Ari Melber]

Minimum security prison that she was ineligible for, who signed off on the special privileges?

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Was it Mr. Blanche? Was it one of your other subordinates?

[Pam Bondi]

So please, can you tell us who.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Sent her there, since you don't agree.

[Ari Melber]

She should be there?

[Pam Bondi]

I said I do not agree she should receive special treatment. She was transferred, I learned after the fact, to the same level facility. And that is a question for the Bureau of Prisons. I was not involved in that at all. The same level facility. I don't know why.

[Ari Melber]

Fact check. Less than true. Dodgy at best. Because even if Bondi was not previously involved, she is the Attorney General. She remains involved by the nature of her job. Unless of course, there was some rare situation like you are formally recused from some part of BOP or doj. That's not the case. So she's involved right now. If she thinks this was the wrong transfer, if she thinks it looks like or constitutes any kind of reward or special treatment for this convicted sex offender, she can move her back. So it's not enough to say you didn't know back then, otherwise people can also ask whether they believe all this, right? We've reported on people lying. Bondi's been caught with misstatements about the very Epstein matter before. This is not some random thing. This is the DOJ's job to oversee, detain, punish people in the Bureau of Prisons. That's what the entire federal prison system is. Now, this was not specific to just that moment. Across the hearing, we saw Bondi, who may still be fighting for her job, given the many problems she's faced around the Epstein files and her own misstatements, trying a sort of Trumpian effort to dodge, to deflect, to bring up unrelated issues, to say things that she thinks are positive for the Trump administration but aren't really responsive to the questions and at times just hurling insults. How many of Epstein's co conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating?

[Pam Bondi]

First you showed a. I find out.

[Ari Melber]

How many have you indicted.

[Pam Bondi]

Excuse me, I'm gonna answer the question.

[Ari Melber]

Answer my question.

[Pam Bondi]

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

[Ari Melber]

The way I asked. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch, not on our time. No way. And I told you about that Attorney General before you started.

[Pam Bondi]

You don't tell me.

[Ari Melber]

Oh, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.

[Pam Bondi]

Lawyer. Not even a lawyer if they're not privileged.

[Ari Melber]

Quiet.

[Pam Bondi]

Don't yell at me. I want the record to reflect that, you know, with this anti Semitic culture right now, she voted against a resolution condemning.

[Ari Melber]

Who is Julie? I just want to be clear.

[Pam Bondi]

Do you want to go there? Attorney General? Do you want to go there?

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Are you serious, gentlemen?

[Pam Bondi]

Talking about anti Semitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust.

[Ari Melber]

And on it went. If you see clips like that, you may understand why the news isn't going to run. Huge parts of that hearing, because some of it, at just the level of being able to listen to it, became heated, if not at times nonsensical. So that's enough of the hearing for this moment. I want to make sure we keep an eye on what we're learning. There were references today and we played some of them to the question asked, what about the other co conspirators? And there were references to Lutnick and others exposed by these files. Those things matter more than the fireworks. I want to show you what we've gleaned from the files. Around the time the DOJ had Epstein as an indicted defendant because they had their inner circle identified. Only one of these individuals, as everybody just about knows by now, Maxwell has been convicted. Others, as you see here, were pursued to some degree. Brunel, indicted abroad, later died. Kahn subpoenaed. Indike subpoenaed his assistant, Grof, seen as a potential co conspirator, according to the DOJ at the time, never indicted. And Beller, you see there, what you're looking on your screen is from the files. This is not some external observation. This is what we now learn the DOJ was pursuing at the time. And the point raised in the hearing today and by many others is how few of these people have actually been pursued. Is that because this is as far as the facts went, that would be okay? Or is it because they were interfered with or somehow stopped by the many power games and corruption that are also redolent in the files now because the names appear in the Files does not mean any of them have committed any criminal wrongdoing. But that is the start of the threads we're pulling on here. You have a much wider group of names with the same caution. The fact that they're pursued or reviewed does not mean evidence of criminal wrongdoing. And this is a partial list, but I want to show you this tonight. We made this again based on the files. Upper left, you see Lutnick. The testimony that he's given about Epstein island only came this week. Musk has been subpoenaed for this. The files showed more information about him interacting with Epstein than he'd admitted. Acosta, you may recall, ousted from the first Trump term over that sweetheart deal with Epstein. Clinton now subpoenaed, and big debates over what the Congress may or may not learn. There you go through the rest of this list. These are not all household names, but they do show that both before the full file release and now as we continue to go through it, there are consequences to investigative pursuits, information continuing to come out that matters as much or more than the fire in the hearings and some of the politics surrounding it. Because there is a process, however long delayed, to try to get to the bottom of the information and the accountability for the people in these files. And as you see, so many of them turn out to be rich, powerful, well connected men. Professor Murray is here. We're going to get into this when we return in 90 seconds. We're following that absolutely fiery hearing with Attorney General Bondi today in the Congress. And amid the fireworks, there are still important investigative questions. We have seen from the new files for the first time what the DOJ was looking at here. It is the first time that they actually had Epstein in a sex trafficking case. These were the inner circle figures they identified. Some of that was questioned along with the fireworks today. I want to bring in Professor Melissa Murray. Your thoughts on the heat and the light today.

[Melissa Murray]

Well, Ari, you said it was fiery. I would say it was bonkers. I don't think I have ever seen anything quite like this. Certainly from a sitting Attorney general, there were times when it felt a little bit more like a housewives reunion than congressional testimony. So leaving aside the questions of accountability that were genuinely left aside by the Attorney General, it was a kind of shocking display of disrespect to Congress as a coordinate branch of government, an assertion of the President as someone to whom the Congress should be obedient to. To whom Ham Bondi is clearly very loyal to. To who and for the American people. There was no transparency There was no accountability here. This was not an opportunity for the public to learn what happened. This was grandstanding in its best form.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah, I mean, on her side. And yet the chart I'm showing is what we also learned from the files, that we didn't have the inner circle we have up here. That shows you basically, as Nadler and others were asking today, whatever happened to these leads? The wider chart I want to show comes, as you, as you rightly point out, despite the conduct of the DOJ and the Attorney General. And I'm not here to tell everyone what the proper amount of accountability is, but I can report more accountability over time as more files have come out. Upper right Larry Summers, who's been in a Democratic administration, paid some consequence. The lower bar is a lot of financial elites and others lower left Brad Karp, a top lawyer ousted from one part of his position to Paul Weiss. And these are early days of the many millions of files. I guess that's the question tonight. How do you contrast that slow push the survivors have made for some accountability with the way the DOJ and Bondi continue to conduct themselves?

[Melissa Murray]

Well, I mean, this is not the first time we've seen something like this, Ari. In the wake of January 6th, we saw state bar associations moving with greater alacrity to hold the individuals who were associated with the attack on the Capitol. For example, Rudy Giuliani was disbarred. That's where we got the majority of accountability. We saw a really slow effort to bring cases, whether they were civil cases or criminal cases, in the courts. Lots of reasons for that. Obviously, in the case of the president and a criminal case, the Supreme Court was a real lag on that. But this is not unusual in a circumstance like this where you have a deeply politicized Department of Justice and, and a president that is controlling quite a lot of it. To see the accountability coming from private institutions who are beholden to other interests, not just the president, whether it's corporate interests or shareholders. They have other things they have to account for and that makes them move perhaps more quickly than the wheels of justice.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah. And you're making sort of a broader point that's not stitched into the rules, but is how this works what you're calling their, their stakeholders? It's funny because in a better working system, you'd expect the formally democracy related parts of our system to use democracy. And that seems to be failing in all sorts of ways. Rule of law. And yet you're reminding us a type of democracy, or at least outside pressure lands and we're not talking about small issues. When you talk about an insurrection like January 6th, those consequences or this level of sex trafficking, you're talking about the truly indefensible. I want to play a moment where Pam Bondi said several things that were true. She talked about the history of this, which I've been careful to emphasize. The DOJ has problems across multiple administrations. And then she said the Dow is up. True. But as lawyers might say, relevance. Look at this exchange.

[Pam Bondi]

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? Because Donald Trump. The Dow, the Dow right now is over. The dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing.

[Ari Melber]

Now, Professor. I just want to be clear. We do have transcripts here in the newsroom. She says none of them. Ask Garland. Do you want to know why? Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now is over. That's, that's the claim. So I don't think we have to spend too long parsing it. It's nonsensical. But in her smattering of talking points, she refers to the fact that under Merrick Garland, the DOJ did not have a plan for transparency for the survivors. They did not do better release or redactions, and they did have control of the files then. So I'm curious again, asking you to do the hard work today. Some of us just watch Pam Bondi. You have to explain her. How should we intelligently make sense of a bucket of points, some of which are true. There are there. If you say, is this a bipartisan failure? A lot of the evidence says yes, and some of which are irrelevant, which is, how do you fix it now?

[Melissa Murray]

Yeah, I think that was made, that point was made a million times in the course of this hearing. Like, there's a lot of blame to go around. Here are a lot of people who look the other way in a number of different administrations. This scandal goes back years and years. So again, that's clear. That's true. Everyone knows it. But right now, Pam Bondi is the Attorney General of the United States and the buck stops with her and this administration because of everything that has happened, because it is in the ball, is in their court right now. And her answer is, I mean, not simply non responsive, just absolutely unhinged. It seemed like the point was Donald Trump has a mandate to bring the economy to some kind of peak and he's doing that. Therefore this accountability is unnecessary. The answers that people want over these Questions don't matter. And that's simply not the case. And to the point about democracy failing here and democratic institutions failing here, sure, that's true. This was Congress, the representative of the people, holding a bipartisan hearing where on both sides of the aisle there were critics of Pamela, Joe Bondi. And instead, what we saw was the Attorney General of the United States, someone who is charged with upholding the law, the chief law enforcer of this nation. And she stonewalled. She stonewalled Congress. She stonewalled the people.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah, no, I think you put it clearly and you have a measured form of also making sure people understand this isn't normal, this wasn't constructive. She has an obligation right now, if I may be so bold as to say she's a public servant and her salary is paid by the taxes.

[Melissa Murray]

That's the truth, Ari. She is a public servant.

[Ari Melber]

That's the truth. And as you say, that didn't come across at all. And her problem is bigger than the political kind of circus she wanted to make it. She has a problem with the survivors. She has a problem, as you mentioned, with the legal experts and community there. She has a problem that her boss, Trump has given a lot of this process over to Todd Blanche because she was caught in too many lies, even quote, unquote, for Trump. So she's got a lot of problems. And as you point out, this effort to kind of go nuclear, Def con, bonkers, bananas. 10 may not have done what she hopes, which is to make this look like a circus. There's a lot of people who've been following the receipts.

[Melissa Murray]

As always, she's like 99 problems, but accountability ain't 1.

[Ari Melber]

Boom. Couldn't have said it better. Thank you, Professor. We always love Professor Murray covering the ground on more than one level. I'm going to show folks, by the end of the hour, Joe Rogan hitting Trump on gaslighting for Epstein. Epstein, I should say, ice busting a lot of. A lot of different ice problems. But they've recently been busted for how they're defying judges orders and we're looking at accountability on that. But a story that is incredibly important. It shows how Trump wants to be Putin in ways that are illegal, that could get people around him indicted eventually, but that today involve a huge loss. The guardrails hold, as we've been telling you about. That story's next.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

It's tax season and at LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.

[Ari Melber]

Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires. I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

This is very strange, Angie the one.

[Ari Melber]

You trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home [e-mail].

[Commercial Announcer]

Ready for big fun? Start for free at Chumba Casino. Sign up and enjoy a welcome bonus with gold coins and sweeps coins to explore hundreds of online social casino games, all from your phone. Spin play and discover something new whenever you feel like it with no downloads needed. More games, more ways to play. Let's Jumba no purchase necessary. VGW group void where prohibited by log. See Terms and conditions for details.

[Ari Melber]

21/An AutoCAD tries to indict the opposition party for things they say for their actual political speech. We report on those stories from abroad all the time. And Putin's Russia tonight We're reporting on that story here. Even though Trump's effort to be Putin is failing badly and in public, a federal grand jury taking the rare step in Washington of refusing to allow a case moving forward that the Trump DOJ wanted to indict not one or two but six different Democrats all at once. This comes from a plot, Trump admitted, of selective prosecution, where you try to target opponents. That's usually unlawful. He wanted to indict lawmakers for their protected free speech in a video. This rebuke is a blow to Donald Trump's probably unconstitutional revenge agenda, abusing the DOJ to go after people that he doesn't like, not based on evidence, but just because he wants to. The Times notes how it was a group of ordinary citizens that just rejected this new bid by Trump to label dissent as a criminal act. Some of the targeted lawmakers speaking out today, every American should be appalled that.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Donald Trump and his political goons in.

[Ari Melber]

The Justice Department have weaponized our Justice Department.

[Melissa Murray]

This is a victory for the Constitution of the United States.

[Ari Melber]

They want to scare not just us, they want to scare the American people. I'm not going to be intimidated. No one up here is going to be intimidated. This now adds six more losses to the many failed efforts by Trump to go after his opponents. This one coming from a very controversial figure, Jeanine Pirro, who is Trump's sort of political prosecutor or operative in D.C. we don't know whether the DOJ will, having been dealt this rebuke, drop it or try another way. The pressure has been mounting on Bondi because Trump complains about her that he wants more illegal prosecutions. All of this, though, also reflects what you heard those lawmakers mention. The embattled guardrails of American democracy are strained, but some are working. And what you see in green on the tabulation we've shown you, citizen juries, they are standing up even as CEOs or elites have failed and buckled. It was grand jurors, regular citizens, who stopped this effort to indict these six people again over free speech. Congress has largely failed under Republicans to deal with any of this. For example, if it were exposed that a president was abusing the DOJ to try to detain and imprison opponents, you could imagine the demands for a special counsel or defunding or a united front as this type of effort is going at Congress itself. And yet most Republicans are standing by. Some are now making noise. While we've shown efforts to indict opposition members before now, on this one, Republican Thom Tillis says this is political lawfare. The attorney general in that hearing we've been covering was also grilled on it today. You replace real prosecutors with counterfeit stooges who robotically do the president's bidding. You've turned the People's Department of Justice into Trump's instrument of revenge.

[Melissa Murray]

The new presidential directive was a politically motivated attack on civil society designed to silence those who disagree with the administration.

[Ari Melber]

Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza, and you deliver every time.

[Pam Bondi]

What I will say is no one is above the law. Weaponization has ended.

[Ari Melber]

Fact check.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

False.

[Ari Melber]

The Trump administration has pursued more political opponents, people of the opposite party, than any administration in American history in this amount of time. DOJ vet Leslie Caldwell is here next. We're joined by Leslie Caldwell, who ran the Justice Department's criminal division. Welcome your view of these rather astounding reports that the sitting president orchestrated an attempt to get six lawmakers in the opposition party indicted and a grand jury rejected it.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Yeah, I don't even know what to say about it, Ari. It's really something that I never thought I would see in the United States of America, but here we go. And it's not the first time. So it's quite shocking. The Department of Justice clearly has decided that it's going to be at the beck and call of the President. Regardless whether there's any evidence against people. They're going to try to present indictments as they did in this case and also in the Comey and Letitia James cases. It's really quite extraordinary and it's really quite devastating for our country, quite frankly.

[Ari Melber]

Based on your knowledge of this system, the grand jury is often a fait accompli, which is why we have the ham sandwich reference. But the reason for that is supposed to be that prosecutors are very careful that they amass evidence far above the minimal standard required at that step. What is your view of how this goes from here? If they are hell bent on pursuing this, can they try to look at other grand juries in that or other districts?

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

They can. And this is so I can't even begin to say how different this is than what the way the grand jury normally works. Normally, if you're doing an investigation that's of any complexity or high profile individuals such as six members of Congress or the FBI, former FBI director, you want to make sure that you dot your I's and cross your T's when you're presenting your evidence. You want to make sure you have the evidence. You want to make sure that it's going to support your case, it's going to stand up scrutiny in court. Very seldom, I don't know what the exact process used in this particular case was, but very seldom in a case of any significance do you just make one presentation to the grand jury. Generally it'll go on for weeks, if not months, and sometimes even years while cases are presented to the grand jury. If this was just presented in a single day, in an effort to indict six members of Congress in a single day of presentation, that would be really extraordinary. Normally, an indictment of, for example, a member of Congress requires significant approvals within doj and maybe the attorney General can just approve it, saying this is what the President wants. But that's not how the process is supposed to work because you're supposed to make sure that everyone is being treated fairly and equally, regardless of their political party or where they are on the spectrum or whether somebody despises them or hates them or not. And I think part of the point here honestly, is I don't think the DOJ cares whether it wins these cases. They just want to do the President's bidding and they're not going to win these cases because they have no evidence and juries are not going to just be bowled over into convicting somebody or even indicting somebody in the case of this matter.

[Ari Melber]

Well, part of this is intimidation. We showed on our chart the evidence that some business leaders and others seem very cowed. They seem to be caving about things that they five or ten years ago had said the opposite on. We showed some of the members of Congress here, many of whom are veterans, who said they're not afraid, they won't be intimidated. They recognize that's the effort and they've shown courage on behalf of our country, on behalf of all of us. So I don't think there's much room to doubt that they will press on Congressman Crow. And this is the comparison we made here. And you citizen juries are holding up their end in green. My last question to you, Leslie, is Congressman Crow is demanding that the DOJ maintain all the records and materials. Do they then have that legal obligation and how could that be used in a fair or just process in the future to review whether lines were crossed?

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

So I don't know if there's an obligation to maintain grand jury materials indefinitely when there's no indictment in a case. But should they ever want to bring another matter against any of these people, they should maintain, they really should maintain these records because they could be exculpatory. For example, my guess is that Whoever the Assistant U.S. attorney or whoever was the presenter to the to the grand jurors may well have misinstructed them regarding the law, the applicable law. There may be other omissions. It appears that in the, for example, the James Comey indictment, there was mis instruction from the then U.S. attorney about the law and about the Fifth Amendment and James Comey's ability. I think she said something like he can explain that at the appropriate time, not realizing or acknowledging that he has a right to not explain that under the Fifth Amendment. So I think there are probably errors in there. There's probably insufficient evidence as the grand jurors apparently concluded. So I think they it would be foolish not to keep it. And I think that it could surface at some future point if they ever try to do anything with this case again.

[Ari Melber]

Understood. Leslie Caldwell, thank you. Always appreciate it. When we come back, we're going to show you how Donald Trump's Epstein problem is spreading on the right. Joe Rogan mad about the lies.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

It's tax season and at Lifelock we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one. You need to hear billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com special offer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.

[Ari Melber]

Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires. I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end. This is very strange, Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home [e-mail].

[Commercial Announcer]

Ready for big fun? Start for free at Chumba Casino. Sign up and enjoy a welcome bonus with gold coins and sweeps coins to explore hundreds of online social casino games, all from your phone. Spin, play and discover something new whenever you feel like it. With no downloads needed. More games, more ways to play. Let's Jumba. No purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by log. See Terms and conditions for details.

[Ari Melber]

21 plus we are in serious times in America, including intense national clashes about the role and activities of our federal government under President Trump. On this program, we've invited and heard from many members of the government. Borders are Tom Holman, Stephen Miller. We currently have requests out to many members of the administration. We are in dialogue with them so they know the door is open. And right now, continuing with that effort, we are going to hear from two different perspectives. New York Times columnist, longtime journalist Michelle Goldberg, who's an MSNow analyst, and Brian Lanza, who worked on Donald Trump campaigns in 2016 and 2024 and is now a partner at Murray Puglia Affairs. Excuse me. Brian. Hello. How are you? Hello. Great.

[Brian Lanza]

How are you doing?

[Ari Melber]

Good. I just have you. I mentioned Michelle, but I have you. I wanted to start with the concern on the right about the gaslighting, as Joe Rogan puts it. Misstatements by Bondi have been established. What some people call, of course, some, in some cases, lies. Here's Joe Rogan's concerns. Oh, FBI concluded Jeffrey Epstein wasn't running a sex trafficking ring for powerful men. File show. So there you go.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Oh, there you go.

[Brian Lanza]

That's the gaslightiest gaslighting I've ever heard in my life.

[Congressional Chair/Moderator]

Well, what do they think is going on?

[Ari Melber]

Just a bunch of fun, bunch of guys hanging out. That's Rogan, who has been very Supportive of many things, Donald Trump, which is relevant to his concern about accuracy now. And we have Michelle's camera. Good. So I wanted to update when she's now here and can hear you. Brian, why does Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and the DoJ have such a problem releasing the full Epstein files, telling the truth about them? That was on display again today. And why keep someone in the cabinet who lied about going to Epstein island and now only admits it when the files are out?

[Brian Lanza]

Well, first of all, thank you for having me. Listen, I'd say the first scenario that Epstein, what started off as a small brush fire has turned into an inferno. You've seen these FC's files in the process of potentially taking down a government in Europe. There's certainly a test of leadership for the Prime Minister in the UK as a result of these things. And the brush fire has spread transnational here in the U.S. you know, this is more than just a drip, drip trip. This is, this, these, these rel, these, these allegations, this, this evidence that exists is jarring and it's shocking. It, it hurts the nerves. You know, I'm, you know, I'm confused myself at how sloppy this process has been. I think we've heard, you know, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles talk about how this has been bundled by the Justice Department and the result of that bundling. You know, we have been stumbling along, you know, for nearly a year and there's, and in my view, you know, and you know what the perspective I have, there's really no winning in this situation. There's not going to be enough information that will ever be released that'll satisfy everybody. And the way this is, they've sort of self weaponized the issue against themselves that almost at every turn there's even more and more suspicion. And so in my view, when it comes to media strategy, when it comes to times of crisis, you try to resolve these things as fast as possible and stop the drip, drip, drip. I think in Trump's view, it's just in his administration view, I think they think they benefit from the opposite of just drip, drip, drip for every day. And, you know, more information becomes more jarring. Now I will say this. There are a lot of bad actors in this. The vast majority of them have actually been from the Democratic Party. You've had Larry Summers, who's had a resign from Harvard.

[Ari Melber]

We showed that. We had Larry Summers on a chart up earlier tonight. Happy to get into that. But I did want to get an answer from you. You say they bungled it. If you don't think it's good to go to Epstein island. And you don't think that's a good idea. And you work for Trump. Why keep someone around who went to Epstein island and lied about it?

[Brian Lanza]

Yeah, I think the line is, the candor is the issue that ultimately Ludnick has to have with his constituency, which is the US Senate. But as for him going to the island, I mean, you make it sound as if he went to the island with a bunch of other men. He went with his family, he went with his wife, he went with his kids. So his association with the island isn't tainted as others association of the island is where they have these.

[Ari Melber]

And then I want to get Michelle a turn, but just to drill this. And the attorney general was asked about today, you think Donald Trump is fine? It's. You worked for him twice. It's fine to keep someone who went to the island under the conditions you mentioned, but lied about it up until the files busted him. You think that's fine?

[Brian Lanza]

No, listen, I think with Donald Trump, you know, I think what this administration does in these situations is they always, you know, you know, rally around the team and, and because prim. Because they're never going to let the media get this win of a Republican scalp of an administration scalp. So I think this administration will tolerate a lot more than previous administrations just to prove that the media is not driving the narrative, that they're driving the narrative. You know, and, and I think they've proven that time after time, it's always been.

[Ari Melber]

Let me give, let me give Michelle a turn. Michelle, go ahead.

[Michelle Goldberg]

Well, I don't think it's about the media driving the narrative. It's about the public driving the narrative. Right. And they kind of are showing over and over again that they not respond to public outrage. It's why we see in democracies that are still functioning. I mean, I think Great Britain is a great example. You look at the fact that the Prime Minister of England might have to resign. He's not in the files. He might have to resign because he appointed an ambassador who is entangled with Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, that's the kind of accountability you have in a country that still has feedback mechanisms between public outrage and government power. And what Donald Trump has done, I think, by capturing the Republican Party so effectively is severed those mechanisms. It doesn't matter what the public thinks on many of these issues. It doesn't matter. You know, I mean, the media is part of that, but the media is obviously not alone in driving this story. What Donald Trump stands for is impunity. And that's why he will protect people, you know, who kind of clearly in any other sort of an administration would be rendered unfit by, you know, put aside whatever the files show or don't show about their relationship by just the forthright lying about it.

[Ari Melber]

And, Brian, while I have you here, the immigration clashes are huge. Several Trump officials made false statements in trying to defend these tactics. We have a fact check. I want to show that to you. You won't see ICE agents rolling through the parking lots and just snatching someone up. An American citizen shouldn't carry or shouldn't feel the need to carry. Let me tell you what's.

[Melissa Murray]

I don't know.

[Ari Melber]

I think you have a little database of Americans. No, sir, we don't. I can assure you there is no database that's tracking genocide citizens.

[Michelle Goldberg]

Yeah.

[Pam Bondi]

Why are you taking my information down?

[Ari Melber]

Because we have a nice little database. You worked at a Trump campaign that vowed going after immigrant criminals, but not this. Have they gone too far? Should the president apologize to the Americans killed in this overreach?

[Brian Lanza]

Yeah, listen, I come from California, so I know the works of anti immigrant rhetoric that has hurt the Republican Party. I think the policy of mass deportation of illegal aliens makes sense. I think the voters want that. I think the process of it has been sloppy. The process has been jarring. When you see in some of these videos, and it is a warning to Republicans, you don't have to look far to see the example of finally 88, all Latinos. Look at California. Republican Party was a thriving party in California prior to187.187, by the way, had majority support of Latinos in it when it initially passed and then the tactics afterwards turned off people. So I've certainly expressed, you know, concern to my Republican brethren that we have to be careful in this process. It's good to target illegal aliens. It's good to start with criminals. But when you get through this process of now US Citizens are being involved, now people are having to carry additional paperwork. I think that does have a negative effect on the policies that at some point the Latino community has supported.

[Ari Melber]

Yeah, we ran over on time. So I'd love to have you both back together, frankly. And we had a little tech difficulty with Brian and Michelle. Thank you.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

It's tax season, and at Lifelock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one. You need to hear billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points Lifelock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.