The guy who made Pam Bondi Lose her Mind ft Rep Jamie Raskin

You have been the attorney general for a whole year. How many of Epstein's co-conspirators has she indicted is zero. I'm going to answer the question. Answer my question. No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. You don't tell me anything. I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate. The Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader, as I hear Raskin in the words of former President George W. Bush. That was some weird ----. It was like a Twilight Zone moment. I mean, to have a witness who also happened to be the attorney general of the United States of America, our chief law enforcement officer, not being able to respect a single rule of the committee. Congressman Raskin, thank you so much for joining today. You are the the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. So I think there's conservatively about a million things that we could talk about on the channel. But we are we happen to be talking the day after the first oversight hearing on the Department of Justice in which Attorney General Pam Bondi seemed to refuse to answer any substantive questions related to Jeffrey Epstein. She also seemed to defend investigating Les Wexner, who looks all kinds of guilty and also maybe most explosively seem to defend inaction on the DOJ's explaining that the Dow is now over 50000 points. The Dow, the Dow right now is over. The Dow is over 50000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader, as I hear Raskin in the words of former President George W. Bush. That was some weird ----. It was surreal. I kept thinking about that scene in Kerry, which I saw in high school where knives and forks and spoons just start floating around the room. And it was like a Twilight Zone moment. I mean, to have a witness who also happened to be the attorney general of the United States of America, our chief law enforcement officer, not being able to respect a single rule of the committee and the cardinal rule from the perspective of the members, which is we only have five minutes within which to ask a question or questions. And so we control the time and we don't allow the witnesses to filibuster, change the subject, engage in personal insults and ad hominem attacks and so on. And that was all she did. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of overlap between cross-examining someone in court and trying to get substantive answers out of a witness in an oversight hearing. Well, I was going to ask her, because she was an experienced prosecutor, what it means when a court says an answer is non-responsive. Yeah, the lawyers have the judge as a referee, but you guys have to police yourselves. You know, as a member of the minority in the hearing and a minority of Congress in general, what remedies do you have if a witness is being completely non-responsive? Obviously, people prevaricating and avoiding questions in congressional hearings is nothing new, but is there anything that you can do when they outright refuse to answer? Well, we ended up exposing the attorney general of the United States for essentially being a fraud. She does not take interest in the victims of injustice, in the victims of violent crime, certainly in the Epstein case. And she constantly sides with the perpetrators. And of course, she derives that policy from the top. I mean, that's Donald Trump, if you look at who he's pardoned. He's pardoned cop beating insurrectionists and Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and people in the crypto industry, white collar criminals who pony up money for his campaigns. Hundreds of millions of dollars that was supposed to have gone to the victims of crime have gone back to the perpetrators because of Donald Trump's extraordinary white collar leniency pardon policies. So that's basically where she's at. And we wanted to frame it yesterday to expose her for being on the side of the perpetrators and against the victims and the whole world could see it. I mean, she literally would not apologize to the survivors of the Epstein violent international child sex trafficking ring. She would not accept my challenge to create a federal state local task force to follow through on these six million documents demonstrating all manner of criminality and abuse of children and trafficking. She doesn't want to do anything unless it fits Donald Trump's political agenda. She became very animated and passionate and focused when she was talking about the Don Lemon case. It was really interesting. She knew everything about it. She spoke with intensity about the whole thing and what they were going to do. And then with more than a thousand victims of Epstein, it was all completely bureaucratic cold indifference. I mean, I am sympathetic to criticisms of the Department of Justice and A.G. Bondi in this context. That being said, there are six million documents to go through, some of which theoretically half of them have been released so far, and she has had tenure as the attorney general for about a year. Can she be expected to provide all of the documents at this point? Can she be expected to comply with the law? I would think so. I mean, the law compelled her to do it several months ago. She has more than 100,000 employees. But look, here's the big picture. Pam Bondi, it's very clear to me, especially after yesterday, is just part of a systemic cover-up of what was taking place. And Donald Trump is central to it. And all of this is coming from the top. There are certain very specific facts, certain very specific crimes that Donald Trump doesn't want people to know about. And so it's all about burying those needles in the haystack and making the process as confusing and as belabored and convoluted as possible. And that became clear at the end of the day yesterday. I don't know if you saw this, but it turned out that they set up these four computers in a DOJ annex for us to go over and look at. They were basically spying on us as we were using their computer program. They were following all the breadcrumbs of where we were going so they would know what we were looking at. And that was discovered yesterday when a photographer took a picture of Pam Bondi's burn book, all the insults that she'd compiled for each of the members of the committee to distract from the business of the day. And at the top of the page for Pramila Jayapal, it said, Pramila Jayapal's research history. And then it was all of the searches she'd engaged in when she went over there. Many of us had suspected that this was going on. And it's obvious it is. And they do consider this a game. And they're just playing hide and go seek. They're not interested in vindicating the rights of the survivors. And that's where we need a breakthrough in terms of the process here so we can get back at what the whole purpose of the federal law is. Yeah. I mean, you read my mind. That was one of the first things I wanted to talk about was this. I consider this to be somewhat of a bombshell that the Department of Justice was tracking what the members of Congress were looking at when they were given access to the unredacted documents. I want to talk about those unredacted documents. But first, I want to talk about this tracking and potential spying. Does that violate any kind of statute or right of privacy? In my mind, at the very least, it would seem to be a violation of separation of powers or the speech and debate clause. Yeah, I mean, that's exactly what I talked about yesterday when I saw it. I mean, you know, we did stupidly or not just accept the fact that we had to go over to DOJ and we had to use their computers and none of us had a password and none of us had an ID and so on. I mean, all of us were remarking upon the weirdness of the whole procedure, but we're very eager to get to look at the documents. But it's very clear that it was set up in such a way to allow them to monitor us. And so we're not going to accept that anymore. And we're going to need a complete reset on the procedure of this thing. It's not a game. And when Bondi says, oh, well, we you know, we've released more files than anybody else. That's a federal law compelling you to do that. And you didn't release another three million. And that's part of the law, too. You got to release all of it. And the only thing you can redact is the name of the victims. And you failed at that. One question I have is why were the computers made available at all? The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires really production of all these documents within 30 days. They're not in compliance of that 30 days. We're well past the 30 days. We're well past the 15 days for a privilege log as required by the EFTA. So what is this weird process that was created where four computers were made available to members of Congress to review what were supposed to be unredacted documents. But we know many of the documents were redacted. It seems like in the March redactions by the FBI, if not the more current redactions. Like I said, we're in the middle of a cover up and the cover up actually goes way back to 2008 and 2009. The Department of Justice had prepared a 60 count, 6-0, a 60 count federal indictment on all kinds of child trafficking, prostitution. You know, the money was part of it. The whole thing, 60 count federal indictment that got traded for a single state count of solicitation to prostitution, I think it was, that Epstein took the heave for. And then as part of the sweetest of sweetheart plea bargain deals ever, he didn't have to spend 24 hours a day in jail for a year. For 12 hours a day, he was free to do whatever he wanted. This is the deal that was worked out from former USA Alex Acosta. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Alex Acosta worked it out. So we need to go back to the beginning of this thing. We want to see all the documents that the Department of Justice was ready to go with, all of the names of the co-conspirators, the whole thing, everything they knew and everything that they were prepared to argue at court. Instead, all of it got thrown away under the most suspicious circumstances with Jeffrey Epstein's team of lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz, and they destroyed the federal indictment. And it's been a double standard of justice and a cover up ever since then. I mean, you're telling me that this is a, we know it was a more than a billion dollar global child sex trafficking ring with girls coming from Latin America, from Eastern Europe, from France, from England, from all over the place. We know that there were hundreds of involved and that there were only two people who committed crimes, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, what a joke that is. We know how fraudulent that is. So that's why I challenged Bondi yesterday. Let's create a federal state local task force to see what crimes were committed and where the statute of limitations has not run yet and make it international if you want to. But no, they're all about sweeping it under the rug. So we're gonna have to figure out a way to break through. Well, you raise an interesting point about the type of documents that are in the larger tranche of documents, which include a lot of internal Department of Justice documents. The Epstein Files Transparency Act very clearly targets those documents as responsive. I haven't seen too many of the internal documents as of yet. Maybe they are part of the batch that are withheld. Congressman Goldman yesterday made a really interesting point in raising redacted versions of an indictment and a DOJ memo and to which Attorney General Bondi sort of prevaricated and said, oh, I thought you were a lawyer. Those are privileged, not a complicated question. Well, I guess it is for you because you have a law degree and those are privileged. In reading through the Epstein Files Transparency Act, again, with an eye towards that particular defense, privilege is not a defense to withholding responsive documents. The federal law that we passed obviously overrides whatever state law level privilege you think you've got. The terms of the statute are perfectly clear about that. So that is fraudulent, that argument that she was floating yesterday. And this is a problem with us only having five minutes that, you know, you have to lay out your entire argument and then you get some nonsense like that. And by the time it's over, you know, Dan Goldman doesn't have the time to repudiate and refute clearly bogus arguments. Well, OK, so apart from sort of state level privilege that that might exist, can this particular act of Congress passed almost unanimously override potential executive privilege or deliberative process privilege or attorney-client privilege? I mean, the attorney general is an attorney for the United States in this context and the client is the United States. Despite the fact that this statute does not allow privilege to be a reason to withhold documents, isn't there going to be a separation of powers dispute over potential other federal privileges that might allow her to withhold some documents? I don't see why there would be. I mean, the president's job under Article 2 is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. So do your job, execute this law. Remember, to the extent that the president himself is implicated, he's not implicated as a president. He'd be implicated as another one of the guys at Jeffrey Epstein's parties and doing whatever. So I don't know. I mean, are you saying that they've got the power to transform the extraordinary executive privilege that was created by the Roberts Court for Trump into protection from exposure under the Epstein Transparency Act? I mean, that would be amazing to me. I mean, you know, I don't know. That's sort of the thing that comes to mind. Yeah. I'm not saying it's impossible. I mean, again, you know, we're at a time where knives and forks and spoons are just flying around the room. I mean, anything can happen. Like, basically, all of it is about private criminal activity. It's got nothing to do with the business of the people of the United States. That's what's in those documents. It's about crimes. I mean, let me push back on that a little bit. Look, independent media is more important than ever. And that's one of the many reasons we've ended together with hundreds of your favorite nonfiction news and educational content creators to build Nebula, the sponsor of today's video. Nebula is a streaming service where you can watch all the content from your favorite creators like Johnny Harris, Neo, Jetlag, Real Engineering, Real Life Lore, and of course, Legal Eagle, ad free and early. Plus watch countless Nebula exclusives and original videos made with love, time, effort, and increased budgets that would be too risky on YouTube. I personally love Tara Mookney's incredibly well-researched series Polytits, which explores the hidden politics of female breasts. But the only place you can watch it is on Nebula. In fact, we upload extended cuts of every video we make to Nebula, like the video Devin did with Brennan Lee Mulligan on the legal beatdown that he and Dr. Mike gave to The Good Doctor. Both contain over 10 minutes of hilarious insights and analysis that we had to cut from the YouTube version. But the best part about watching Legal Eagle on Nebula is that we've uploaded tons of exclusive content, like this recent video of the wild and forgotten attempts to ban booze in the U.S. and my video on how RFK Jr. can legally ban vaccines. And at Nebula, we're in it for the longest term possible, a lifetime. That's why our link in code will get you $200 off the lifetime subscription rate of $500. That means that for $300, you can start watching every Legal Eagle video ad free and early forever, or you can get 50% off an annual subscription. That's a year of the best content for just $30. Either way, click or scan now to continue watching Legal Eagle on Nebula, or we will see you in court. I mean, let me push back on that a little bit. One of the things that's extraordinary about the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which is only, you know, two pages long, I think people should read it, it's extremely easy to understand, is that the documents that are required to be disclosed, everyone sort of thinks of it as, you know, the Epstein Files, and it's this defined library of documents that has existed for a decade now, when really, a lot of the things that the DOJ is dealing with right now in terms of, let's say, decisions about to redact, or, you know, decisions about what is responsive or not, are things that I would say are documents that are responsive and need to be disclosed. And so, as they are continuing to interact with these documents, they are creating more documents that must be disclosed. And I certainly would like to see documents related to the decisions that they have made about redactions. And I think that they are obligated to disclose them unless there is some sort of, you know, executive or deliberative privilege that would prevent them from doing so. Well, you know, that executive privilege phrase is a very slippery one, which presidents of both parties have tried to abuse and to stretch beyond all recognition. I mean, the reality is, must be, I should say, that this is the people's government, and all of us who aspire and attain a public office are nothing but the representatives of the people. And if the representatives of the people in the Article I branch of government say that there's a category of information that the government possesses that must be made available and transparent to the public, then so it must be. How could there be some kind of privilege against that? It's very hard for me to understand that. Remember, the president's job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. And so, I mean, that might cut against the quasi-monarchical pretensions of the current regime, but that's the reality of the situation. You know, I get very mad at my colleagues when they buy this fifth-grade dogma that we've got three co-equal branches of government. First of all, co-equal is not even a word. Let's start with that. But secondly, if anybody is more equal than others, it's not the presidency, it's certainly Congress, which is the Article I branch of government. James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, it would be the predominant branch of government. And right after you get the preamble, you get to the first sentence of Article I, right? So you've got, we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare, do hereby ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States. The very next sentence says, all legislative power is vested in Congress of the United States. The sovereign power of the people to create the Constitution and the government and the country flowed right into Congress. And then you get all the powers that we have, the power to regulate commerce domestically, internationally, the power to declare war, coin currency, naturalization, the whole thing. And then Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, and all other powers necessary and proper to the execution of foregoing powers. Then you get to Article II, which is like this big. The most important paragraph says, a president shall be removed from office upon impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. And so what is the president's core job when you look at it? Yeah, commander-in-chief, not of the country, as Bondi said yesterday, commander-in-chief of the army and the navy and the militias in times of actual service, and then to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That's your job. You do your job when you go and implement and enforce what the people's representatives are passed. Look, I could not agree with you more. I would only point out that many members of the current Supreme Court, you know, created basically from whole cloth presidential immunity in Trump versus the United States. And a large portion of that decision was based on the idea, going all the way back to, you know, Brett Kavanaugh's law review piece, that the executive needs to be basically unhindered to be able to execute the laws. And I can absolutely see that if there is a showdown between the Department of Justice saying we can't release privileged documents and Congress, I'm not sure where my money would be in terms of how the court is going to shake out on that. But I mean, just politically speaking, what would their interest be in doing that? I mean, I thought they wanted to see all the truth come out. Now, we know that that is radically deceptive, given that Trump did everything he could to stop us from passing that law. And then when we pulled over Thomas Massey and Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, and then it was clear it was going to pass, then everybody didn't want to be caught on the wrong side of it. And then everybody got behind of it. And then it was near unanimous. Then Trump tried to, you know, run in front of the middle of the parade and say, oh, yeah, I was for this, you know, all along. I mean, how ridiculous is that? But then we see what they're doing now. They're trying to wreck our ability to actually get inside there and see what's happening. So let's talk about the documents that you were able to see when you had access to the Department of Justice's computers there. I think you mentioned that you had a few hours to review, you know, the documents that you wanted to see. Obviously, you're not going to be able to review the remaining three and a half million documents in that time. Yeah, I only got through around two million documents. I can imagine if you added up all the documents that all the members of the Congress who've been over there since Monday, when this started, have been able to look at, I cannot imagine it's one tenth of one percent of what was released. And then there's the other three million that were never released. I mean, this is a joke. We're never going to make this happen this way. Why can't our staff look at it? Why can't we have staff look at it? Yeah, as a point of reference, six million documents sounds like a lot. That is a small to medium-sized document review for any large law firm in the country. And the Department of Justice is probably the world's largest law firm in a sense. But right, the Department of Justice is not working with us, it's working against us here. They're trying to frustrate us at every turn. So yeah, you tell me, I don't know what your big firm experience is like. If you had six million documents that a big firm wanted to go through in a discovery period, that sounds to me like that's a year or two and you've got probably a staff of 30 or 40 lawyers, associates, and paralegals working on that, no? Full time. It's definitely a staff of several dozen people. It's not a year-long process, for sure. Especially now with the kind of tools that we have to be able to review and redact as necessary. All right, it's several months in any event. It's several months. Yeah. Okay. Well, but again, this isn't a game. We're trying to determine, you know, like massive criminality taking place. And the DOJ should be on our side instead of throwing up roadblocks. And now you're going to be giving me nightmares about them hypothetically asserting different kinds of constitutional privileges to stop us from getting even more information. One question that has been in the back of my mind this entire time is, how do we know that these are even all of the documents? You know, in a prior administration or earlier before the Transparency Act was passed, that documents haven't been destroyed. Remember that Pam Bondi tried to kill, purported to kill, and may have killed the investigation in January of 2025 when they took office. She got from Maureen Comey the complete file. She commandeered the file of the case from the Southern District of New York and then declared the investigation over. Then they did that again. They declared it over in July. They declared it over again when Kash Patel came to testify. And yesterday she declared it over, although she also said that there might be some things that they're looking at, kind of cryptically suggesting something else was going on. And then she said, but her door is open, but she wouldn't agree to meet with the victim survivors who were there. So I just, I think this is like a three-card Monty game that they're playing. And somehow we've got to get either through the state levels or through Congress, other levels of government to get the real investigation going. But the great thing, and this is my prediction, is that in a free democracy where we still have the First Amendment and we're fighting to protect our First Amendment, a lot of people who have a lot of knowledge about this stuff are going to begin to speak out if they feel they can do it safely. In terms of what you were able to access on the Department of Justice's computers, it sounds like you and Congressperson Jayapal and others, I think Congressperson Balit was there as well. It seems like you had access to documentary documents that were part of the database. We know that there are voluminous videos and other multimedia files. In fact, I believe Attorney General Bondi was caught on camera saying that there are something like 10,000 videos and they all involve little kids. Have you seen any indication of either those videos or the kind of evidence that she seemed to have mentioned? Some of my staff had encouraged me to look at it. I could not bring myself to go to the videos and the photos, at least on that first visit. I just finished reading Virginia Dufresne's book, which is called Nobody's Girl. It is so gruesome and appalling for these men to target girls, many of whom were from broken homes, many of whom had been already violently sexually abused in their families, and target them and then pretend to befriend them with $200 and $300 gifts and then pull them into that world. I think at some point we're going to have to go look at all of that stuff. There was a very graphic photo shown yesterday of Prince Andrew essentially poised over the body of what looked like an 11 or 12-year-old girl. There's undoubtedly a lot more where that came from because Jeffrey Epstein was a meticulous and compulsive photographer of everything. Dufresne records in her book that there was a room where he had pictures of every one of his victims. I don't know if there's a picture of the entire room, but there's got to be. We're talking nude photos of all of or some substantial part of his victims out there. Then he was also, according to our Commerce Secretary, somebody who liked to blackmail people and an extortionist. His M.O. was, you know, get a massage, get a massage. And what happened in that massage room, I assume, was on video. This guy was the greatest blackmailer ever. And so he was also taking pictures of other people who went to the island, including Mr. Ludnick, presumably. There are pictures of that, although Ludnick assures everybody he was there with his wife and his four children. And his nanny, too, who he was recommending for employment there at the Epstein Ranch. Oh, God. Yeah, I believe it was it was Representative Massey who pointed out the e-mail that Epstein sent to Maxwell that included his own summary, sort of a memo to file of whatever he was talking about related to Donald Trump. And we don't know what that the content was, but that was one of the things that was redacted seemingly improperly. That was one of the memos I found. This was an e-mail from Epstein to Maxwell, forwarding an e-mail from his lawyers to him. And those lawyers recorded that Donald Trump had not sat for a formal deposition, but had done an interview. And this is in 2019. And then it paraphrases and synopsizes Trump's statements, but to this effect, that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of Mar-a-Lago. He was a guest at Mar-a-Lago, but no, he was never sent away. So there's not much in there, but that was just the first document I saw. And that completely contradicts Donald Trump's repeated boasts that he got rid of Jeffrey Epstein and sent him away after something happened. Sometimes he says, you know, he stole an employee for me, or he was creepy or whatever it might be. What recourse does Congress have for improper redactions? Say, you know, the Attorney General said, if you bring those redactions to our attention, we will unredact them. But it's odd that it would be on Congress to do so, given the wide berth of the Transparency Act. But let's say that she refuses. Yeah. What recourse does Congress have to make sure that that happens? Yeah. I mean, look, it's not built into the statute. So there's no private right of action. There are no damages available for a situation like that. Presumably, Congress, we've got the authority to go and demand it. Yesterday, Attorney General Bonny was saying when she was told that somebody's name was improperly redacted, she corrected it, as in the case of Mr. Wexner. And conversely, she said when they failed to redact someone, they corrected that as well. But it's weird because we've got a kind of quasi-administrative legislative political process that has grown up to try to enforce the terms of the statute against a clearly obstructive and recalcitrant Department of Justice. Yeah. Because this is a legal show, I will get into the weeds a little bit here just because I can't help myself. Do you think that it was an oversight not to include a private right of action to allow enforcement? Because candidly, I think one of my worries is that given the current jurisprudence on legislator standing, which by way of background, it's very difficult for legislators to show Article 3 injury and standing to be able to enforce a statutory harm. I would be worried that the court would allow Congress to file suit and enforce the law without using the magic language of a private right of action. No, right you are. All I'll say in defense of Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey is, I mean, they at least had the vision to write a bill to make this happen. And that in itself was a huge break from precedent. I mean, everything under Trump is a case of first impression and just events of first impression and just dramatic departures from everything we ever understood about politics, government, and reality before. And it did not occur to them. And I've actually talked to them about this. I'm like, we've got no private right of action in your guys' legislation. They just said, you know, it wasn't on their mind at that point. So we could go back, obviously, and legislate again. We could amend it. Or we could just keep the pressure and the heat on at this point. But it is fascinating how Trump, who, again, at the end of the day, tried to run out in front of the parade and say, oh, I've been leading it all along, is now constantly undermining it. And there's this just total bureaucratic undertow that we've got in trying to just get the basic terms of the statute implemented. Yeah. Well, speaking of rights without a potential remedy, one thing that Congressperson Jayapal, I think, made a big point about is that many of the names of the victims were revealed. Here is another email titled Epstein Victim List. We have blurred the names of the survivors for their protection, but your Department of Justice initially released this list of 32 survivors' names with only one name redacted. I mean, I think that's sort of monstrous and the response by the attorney general was, oh, if you are a victim and your name has been exposed, just give us a call and we'll redact it for you, which I think that's sort of outrageous that it would put the burden on the victims again. I mean, they've had these documents since January and they've been through them many times. Remember, they brought in a thousand FBI agents to scour the Epstein file for mentions of Trump's name or his image in the photos and videos. They've already presumably redacted Trump a lot of the places where they really don't want anybody to see anything. So, you know, I'm convinced that we're seeing the residue of the materials that could have been redacted or quasi-redacted or excised or just confiscated through two or three or four generations of review. I mean, in a, what is basically a post-Bivens world, do the victims have any recourse for the maybe pain and suffering that they've suffered because of the exposure? I don't know if you saw it, but I raised it yesterday in the hearing because I said, Donald Trump is the first president to sue the government for money damages. And, you know, he wants $230 million damages for the search at Mar-a-Lago, which turned up hundreds of pilfered government documents. It was a perfectly valid search warrant that has not been reversed or struck down in any way. But he wants $230 million for that. He also wants $10 billion from the IRS for an actual violation, statutory violation of his rights. And this is, there's a guy actually in jail now named Charles Littlejohn, who is a private consultant to the IRS who leaked Trump's tax returns. Remember, Trump had been repeatedly promising to release his tax returns and every other president had done it, but then he didn't want to, and that was his legal right not to. And yet this guy leaked it out. So he's in jail, but for Trump, that's not enough now. He wants $10 billion, which I think is a majority of the IRS's budget for this year. So I asked Attorney General Bondi whether she thought this would violate the domestic emoluments clause, which of course confines the president to his salary in office and says in the constitution that it cannot be increased in any way. He cannot get any other money from the federal government or from state governments. He's limited to his salary. Well, as I suspected she would, she said she wouldn't comment on that and that's live litigation, a live cause of action. I said, okay, great. So you're actually open to the possibility that he could get $10 billion or some small fraction of that, like maybe just a billion dollars that you might settle with him. And he remarked upon the fact of the irony that he might end up settling with himself. And he said, isn't that funny? That's humorous. It's kind of weird. It's like you're suing yourself. Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? But anyway, she didn't want to opine on it because it was live litigation and he's got a cause of action. So I said, okay, fine. So Donald Trump is injured by virtue of the privacy violation he suffered when his tax returns were released. And he suffered the indignity of the whole world knowing that he hadn't paid any taxes for several years. Okay, fine. How much worse is the indignity and the privacy violation suffered by these women? The good Congressman from Kentucky just pointed out there were lots of survivors who had decided for reasons of their own, never to release their names. That determination was represented to people in Congress and we built it into our federal law that their names could not be released. And yet you published their names, their phone numbers, their addresses, personally identifying information. If Donald Trump can get $10 billion theoretically from the Department of Justice, how much should these people get for a far worse violation of their privacy rights and a far greater danger established to them in their lives? Do you even know who Chase Mulligan is? You're so obsessed with, you don't, do you? I'm going to teach you the rules again. And that's when she began to change the subject and talk about things that she thinks she knows are going on in my district and so on. So it sounds like you're saying that the recourse for the victims is to run for president, sue themselves and then pay out one to $10 billion to themselves. We're going to need a federal statute for a whole bunch of reasons, including the Epstein files, including Minneapolis and the massive violation of people's rights by ICE. We're going to have to write a real Bivens statute, a statute that makes people whole when their rights are trampled by a federal government official, just like if they're trampled by a local or state police officer. Yeah. Well, first of all, I think we're doing a video on the emolument stuff and I would love to talk about domestic and foreign. You're doing domestic and foreign? Yes, exactly. Great. I mean, I think emoluments is going to be on my gravestone between the hotel and the crypto. I can't believe we haven't met before, man, after my own heart. I mean, I wrote a lot about this in my book. I'll send you a copy of my book, Unthinkable, but about how, you know, basically faulting us as the Democrats for not having advanced impeachment immediately for violations of the emoluments clause, which is like a wall of separation between the president's personal finances and the conduct of foreign and domestic policy, you know? Yeah. Well, and of course, the emolument suits were bounced on standing grounds. So we don't really have real jurisprudence on either domestic or foreign emoluments. Well, let's come to a special show at the old Trump hotel because I had another bill to rename it the Washington emolument. I said it should be a stop on the tour bus, you know? Final question. If the Democrats do take one or both houses of Congress after the midterms, how does that change the calculus? And what will be on the list of things to do to try to right the ship? This is the difference between you guys in the media and us in politics. You are 57 chess moves ahead of us. I mean, I'm spending my weekends in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Nevada. I'm out there campaigning for people. And so you're already planning our next agenda and we're trying to win the election. So I'm not trying to do a Pam Bondi and Dodger question, but I don't have a 10 part answer for you there, man. I mean, we're going to try to put everything back on course towards the rule of law and justice, democracy and freedom in America. If we've got the gavels, we've got the subpoena power. We'll have much more oversight authority to stop this reign of lawlessness and criminality and terror and corruption. That's our job. And just like we work around the clock, seven days a week right now to try to block them, we're going to try to stop them and play some offense to and make some real progress for the country, like in passing a law that will hold federal officials accountable for crimes committed against the people is inherent contempt on the table. You know, again, you guys are so far ahead of us. I'm spending my time out on the road. I've been in Ohio. I've been in Texas. I'm in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada. I work campaigning against this reign of terror and lawlessness to win back Congress to move forward. I can't give you like a five point agenda of what order we're going to do stuff in. It's really complicated, gets all the committees together and all the caucus together. But I can guarantee you we're going to be unified and focused for progress for America. And that means in my world, defending the rule of law, defending the Constitution, defending the Bill of Rights and promoting democracy and justice for everybody. OK, I will let you get away with that politician's answer. I appreciate that. We will haul you back in here. And we've got about a million other topics to talk about. But Congressman, thank you so much for your time. It was a real pleasure. The pleasure was really all mine. And thank you for doing such a great job here. Now, all this highlights why it's so important to get a great lawyer when you're dealing with your own case. Now, after I started this channel every week, I'd get hundreds of comments and emails from viewers who are dealing with legal problems. And they'd ask, can you help me find a lawyer? How do I know if this attorney is any good? And there's a massive gap in our justice system is that people don't know how to find the right lawyer for their specific situation. They're scared, they're overwhelmed, and they end up doing nothing or hiring the first attorney who calls them back. And that really bothered me. So I started to wonder, what if there was a different way? What if we could build a law firm that actually lived up to the values that I talk about on this channel? Transparency, accessibility and putting clients first instead of chasing billable hours, a firm where you don't need to pay anything up front and your lawyers only get paid if you do to maximize your opportunity for justice. So a few years ago, I decided to fix that problem. I decided to start my own personal injury law firm. And honestly, it wasn't an easy choice, but I realized I was in this unique position. I had this platform, this community and the experience not to get rich. Trust me, there are easier ways to make money than starting a law practice. But we did it because access to justice shouldn't be a luxury because finding the right legal representation shouldn't feel like playing Russian roulette with your future. And when you work with my firm, you're not just getting a lawyer, you're getting a team that understands that behind every case is a real person with real stakes. If we can't represent you or you're in a state where we don't practice, we'll take the time to try to match you with an attorney in my personal network of lawyers, a national network of some of the best lawyers in the country who actually specialize in what you're going through, located right where you are, not just whoever happens to be available. So if you're dealing with a personal injury, a car crash, a data breach, sexual harassment, a social security or workers comp issue, give us a call at the number on screen or click on the link below. Now, I can't represent everyone that watches this channel. I wish I could. But what I can do is make sure that when you need legal help, you have somewhere to turn to that you can trust. So whether it's me handling your case or the incredible attorneys we partnered with, you'll get the same principles of honesty and education that we bring to every video. And if you're dealing with a legal issue and you're not sure where to start, check out the link in the description. Let's have a conversation about how we can help you find not just a lawyer, but the right lawyer for your situation. Because at the end of the day, that's what this is all about. Making sure that when life gets complicated, you don't have to face it alone, which is why when you need a lawyer, you don't just need a legal team, you need the Eagle team.