BREAKING: Shocking Announcement From Attorney General Pam Bondi

You're watching The Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we've got an insane new announcement from Attorney General Pam Bondi. Can you explain what she just said? Yeah, Brian, let me preface it by saying this is obviously more of the Donald Trump-Pam Bondi distraction palooza because Trump and company are drowning in the Epstein-Maxwell scandal. So here is today, literally today's attempt to distract. Pam Bondi has announced she's opening a grand jury investigation into Barack Obama's involvement in the 2016 probe into Trump-Russia, Russian interference in our 2016 election. Now, first of all, as I recall, Brian, Donald Trump won that election. Moreover, this is a matter that has been investigated to death. It was investigated by a Republican administration previously by Bill Barr's Department of Justice when Barr appointed special counsel John Durham to investigate all things Trump-Russia. And with respect to crimes that were committed by the prior administration, Durham came up with exactly nothing. There's no there there. And it's not for a lack of effort by Bill Barr and John Durham. This was also investigated by a bipartisan Senate intel panel headed up in part by Marco Rubio. And they announced there was no there there. They also announced that Russia indeed tried to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. So the fact that Pam Bondi is now taking a third swing at this with absolutely no evidence to open a grand jury investigation makes it painfully clear that this is nothing more than another attempt to distract the public's attention from what's going on, the clamor, the outcry for the release of the Epstein files. And remember, Brian, it was only a couple of days ago now that they made another big announcement about another investigation they were opening again in their attempt to distract. That was that they're going to investigate former special counsel Jack Smith for indicting Donald Trump's for the crimes he committed. That one also fell flat. So it really does look like Trump and company are losing the ability to distract. Glenn, we've heard the saying that a ham sandwich. And so is there any concern that despite how misguided and baseless all of this is, that Pam Bondi and the DOJ could still go in front of a grand jury and convince them that there is some there there? Because unless you're steeped in this stuff, unless you know the reality of the situation, you're going to hear her make what is what is as compelling an argument as she can or whatever prosecutor is making that case. And you're not going to know any better. And so is there some concern, at least from the grand jury perspective, that that the DOJ will actually have very little barrier to moving forward with this thing? Yeah, there is absolutely a concern. So if they can find a DOJ lawyer who is entirely without ethical grounding and that DOJ lawyer can find an FBI agent willing to go before the grand jury and lie and say there is evidence of Obama and company committing crimes when they were investigating Russian interference into U.S. elections, could they dupe a grand jury into returning indictments? The answer is absolutely yes. You know, the grand jury process is only as good as the integrity, the ethics and the honor of the prosecutors who present the witnesses and the witnesses who testify before the grand jury. So I am concerned about that. But you know what I take comfort in? If they try to through the federal courts and they will have to once an indictment has been returned by a federal grand jury. I'm telling you, Brian, the federal judiciary will cram that case, figuratively speaking, directly down the throat of the DOJ attorney who had the poor judgment to go in and present a bogus case to the grand jury. But here's the thing. I do not think it's ever going come to that. I think this is, you know, in keeping with Donald Trump's M.O., right, his modus operandi, his method of operating is to announce investigations. And that is what captures the public attention. Because if you hear that somebody is being investigated for suspected wrongdoing, where does your mind go? Well, there you know, where there's smoke, there's fire. There must be wrongdoing. But Brian, it always takes me back to I think what perfectly encapsulates Donald Trump's M.O. in this regard. When he lost the 2020 election, he lost it badly. He gathered some of his high DOJ officials into the Oval Office. They told him there's no fraud undermining the election's results. Joe Biden won. And Mr. President, you lost. And Donald Trump said, in substance, I don't care if there's no fraud. Just say there is and leave the rest to me and my allies in Congress. You know, this is just a variation on the theme when he told President Zelensky, look, look, look, just announce an investigation into Joe Biden. Well, here we go again. Days ago, they announced an investigation into Jack Smith, who committed no crimes. There's no evidence he committed crimes. And today, they're following it up with another attempted distraction. We're gonna investigate Obama and his administration. I would bet my full dollar, you know, that's my betting limit. I'm not a gambling man. I'm not a high roller, $1. I would put the full buck on exactly zero indictments being returned by any grand jury against Obama or his administration officials. Can you talk about the fact that the Trump administration would go so far as to either threaten to use or outright use the DOJ just as some pawn in this broader effort to distract from Trump's existing problems as they relate to Jeffrey Epstein, for example? The rule of law is dead in Pam Bondi's Department of Justice. Now, it can be reborn. I'm confident it can be reborn. And that will be our cleanup mission that we're gonna have to go on when, you know, when adults are once again in charge of the Department of Justice, the rule of law, the executive branch in charge of our government. And we are all fighting every day to make sure that day arrives. But, you know, it is presently dead. So Pam Bondi can say and do anything. This is a woman who came in on day one with an avowed enemies list. She actually listed the names of the people that were Donald Trump's enemies that she will be investigating. Evidence of wrongdoing be damned. You know, there's a saying that, you know, we use in the law enforcement community when it comes to our decision to open a criminal probe. We have to have adequate predication. You have to have some evidence, some credible evidence that one, a crime has been committed and two, that some person committed it. That's when you open an investigation. But you know what? The rules, the laws, the protocol, the constitution, it's all out the window in Pam Bondi's Department of Justice. So this is what we get. But, you know, I think I said a few minutes ago that, you know, these outrageous pronouncements of investigating Jack Smith, investigating Barack Obama, I think are losing the ability to distract. The reason I say that, Brian, is because we see the outrage in his MAGA base, his supporters. You know, they want the Epstein files, and they're not being distracted by a Jack Smith or a Barack Obama investigation. And here is the surest sign that they are unable to distract. It is when a Republican-led committee, the House Oversight Committee, just announced 10 subpoenas looking into the Epstein-Maxwell debacle. And who are those 10 people? Let me read off the list. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Attorney General William Bill Barr, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, couple of Republicans there for you. Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, another Republican, former FBI Director James Comey, former Special Counsel Bob Mueller, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former President Bill Clinton. So the one thing I think we can say with confidence, Brian, is the distraction is not working. It's not even derailing Donald Trump's, you know, allies, folks who are usually allies in Congress, the Republican members of Congress. This story has legs, and those legs seem to be, you know, forever kicking Donald Trump in the ass, figuratively speaking. You know, I interviewed a ranking member on the Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia, this morning, and that video is already out. And in that video, he discussed the fact that I think Republicans wanted to try and pit the Democrats against the Republicans. And instead, the whole thing got voted out of committee because Republicans have the majority there. And Robert Garcia, in our interview, was just like, who cares? Go ahead. You know, if you want to subpoena these people, fine. Like, you know, at the end of the day, we're not looking to protect anybody. Democrat, Republican, independent, be damned. They're not looking to protect anybody. So if they're going to go get subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee, fine. But that doesn't mean that we can't talk about the things that are actually happening, the things that are actually important, which is compelling the release of these Epstein files, which, of course, they were successful in doing. And so, at least in the Oversight Committee, those files are set to be released within the next two weeks. And so they should have some insight into what those files actually say. Yeah, Brian, as somebody who spent his entire career fighting crime, holding wrongdoers accountable and vindicating the rights of victims, I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to talk to any politicians or high government officials from that list who know anything about the Epstein-Maxwell investigations, prosecutions, you know, who is in the files that was involved in wrongdoing, who has not yet been held accountable. I will cross-examine a Republican. I will cross-examine a Democrat, an independent, somebody with no party affiliation, to get at the truth of the folks who were involved, who were complicit, who were assisting in the sex trafficking of children. So, you know, I'm with Representative Garcia. Bring it on. And finally, let's finish off with this. When will we know whether or not the Department of Justice is actually going to move forward with this effort to try and indict any of these folks in front of a grand jury? So here's what I suspect. Grand jury proceedings are secret by law. You know what I never did, not once in 30 years, announce to the public, I'm opening a grand jury investigation. I'm not permitted to do that. But of course, that is what Pam Bondi did. Again, for public relations purposes, not for rule of law purposes. But here's how we are most likely to know. If somebody gets a grand jury subpoena to appear, a witness, witnesses are not bound by grand jury secrecy rules. So if there's somebody who receives a subpoena, and that person has an interest in sharing with the public that, hey, there's a grand jury up and running because I just got a subpoena, and I suspect some of the people they would end up subpoenaing would actually be good, honest, ethical rule of law kind of people. So we would probably learn about the existence of a grand jury proceeding that way. But let me tell you, when Pam Bondi announced the grand jury, she was opening a grand jury into the 2016 election. She didn't say where that grand jury was being opened. Washington, D.C. would be the natural place. She didn't say who they are potentially looking at, other than saying Obama and his administration. And she didn't say one word about any suspected crimes that were committed. Why? Because there's no evidence that any were committed. This ground has been gone over multiple times, including in a bipartisan way by that Senate committee. So, you know, again, this is all for PR value, and I suspect we're going to see exactly nobody indicted by the grand jury. All right. Well, look, we will, of course, stay on top of this. If there are any updates on this story or any other legal news, we'll make sure to bring them to you. For those who are watching, if you'd like to follow along or just support our work completely free, please make sure to subscribe to our channels. I'll put the links right here on the screen. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kirshner. You're watching The Legal Breakdown.