Ted Lieu reveals Pam Bondi, Kash Patel lied under oath about Epstein

I'm joined now by Congressman Ted Lieu. Congressman, thanks for joining me. Honored to be on your show. So Congressman, you've pointed out in a clip that's going viral across social media right now that Donald Trump himself is implicated in the Epstein files with accusations that are beyond heinous. Now Todd Blanch, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel have all come forward and basically said that there's no reason to look into the files at any co-conspirators because they don't exist. And so how do you square these two things where you have evidence against Donald Trump himself in these files and yet all of these law enforcement officials who refuse to acknowledge objective reality? Absolutely. Pam Bondi and Kash Patel lied under oath. Todd Blanch also lied, but he wasn't under oath, so lucky for him. If you look at the Epstein files release that's come out so far, there are multiple documents where there's evidence implicating Trump and not just crimes, but deeply serious crimes. And so I'll just give you one example. The FBI's own internal slideshow that they had is about 21 slides. Two of their allegations are about Donald Trump committing crimes. You also have a FBI document. It's an intake form of a witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operations Center and the witness reports that he met a girl who directly told him that Trump and Epstein raped her. Department of Justice never interviews this witness, doesn't do follow up. You had posted about this online and DOJ's rapid response account, and granted I take everything that the administration, especially as it relates to the Epstein files with a grain of salt, but they said that she spoke with the FBI and her claims were deemed not credible. This was all unredacted as we said. So can I have your reaction to the DOJ's rapid response account? That's just false. So the document I'm referring to is an intake form from the FBI's National Threat Operations Center. The person making their witness statement was a man relaying what a girl he met had told him. This man was also a limousine driver for Donald Trump. And he also says in the same witness report that he overheard Donald Trump talking to Jeffrey on his cell phone, talking about abusing a girl, and that what Donald Trump said was so disturbing, the man wanted to stop the limo and hurt Trump. So this seems like a very credible witness, and the Department of Justice never interviews him. I don't really know what their rapid response for Department of Justice is talking about. They're clearly talking about some other document that I'm not referring to. And again, this is the FBI's own internal slideshow. And then there's other documents that have been now sort of dissected by folks who are independent journalists and folks on social media that show there's two other allegations essentially of women that have made allegations against Donald Trump that would have Trump basically having sex relations with a minor. So how does Todd Blanch get off then in saying that there's no reason to investigate any of the co-conspirators because there aren't even co-conspirators? This is just Jeffrey Epstein orchestrating a sex trafficking ring where he traffics a Well just think how ludicrous it is just based on your recounting of it. The Department of Justice has confirmed there's over 1,000 victims of Epstein's global pedophilia sex trafficking ring. And the Trump Department of Justice has held zero men accountable. It's just a ludicrous number. And other countries are taking this far more seriously. France, for example, their main Paris prosecutor has opened an investigation, a criminal investigation. They have arrested a person. And then you've got the UAE that is also taking some serious action. Britain has taken Prince Andrew, stripped him of his title and kicked him out of his home. And now they're looking at opening a criminal investigation. So everyone is taking it seriously except Pam Bondi, Kash Patel and Todd Blanch. Les Wexner, who is one of the accused co-conspirators within the Epstein files, was was interviewed today at the House Oversight Committee. And I know that you sit on judiciary. But as far as the reporting goes, there wasn't a single Republican who showed up to to that hearing. It was only Democrats. And so what is your reaction to the fact that the Republicans couldn't be bothered to show up for one of the few co-conspirators who we actually know about, despite the best efforts of the Trump administration to hide all of this? Other than a handful of Republicans like Thomas Massey, yeah, and Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mason, Ana Paulina Luna, most of them are complicit. They are complicit in the cover up. They don't want to talk about this. And they know that Donald Trump is implicated in the Epstein files. He is in the files over 38,000 times, according to a New York Times analysis. Other analysis have more than that. And you've got multiple documents of actual witnesses alleging firsthand of crimes that Donald Trump committed. And then you have the Department of Justice not following up. In terms of what the next steps are hopefully going to be in Congress, what are you looking to do? Because I know that this process is is kind of slogging its way forward. You're not going to get any assistance from Republicans. You're not you're certainly not going to get any assistance from the DOJ or the Trump administration. So every victory here has to be, you know, hard fought and won. But what is the next priority in terms of the Epstein files? It is super helpful that you have many people in America looking at these documents. The sheer volume is overwhelming. Over three million documents have been released. So it's helpful when we get notice of folks that say, hey, look at this document. There's something really strange here or incriminatory or creepy. And you see that happen on social media and on the Internet. So that is helpful. In addition, the administration is not immune to public pressure. So the more Americans that speak up, that ask questions, I think every reporter should be asking Tam Bondi and Todd Blanche the question of, are you withholding any photo, video or document that has Donald Trump in it, in the Epstein files? And if so, why are you withholding it? Well, my concern here, and I'm sure this is a concern that that you and other members of Congress share, is that if something is too damning as far as Trump is concerned, that the DOJ is just going to destroy it. And so how can you have confidence that if the DOJ does have some smoking gun or some damaging evidence that points back to Donald Trump or any of his pals or donors, that it's actually going to be retained by this DOJ? So you would hope that the Americans serving in the Department of Justice who have looked at these documents and videos and photos will, number one, remember what they saw, and number two, not commit a crime and destroy them. So that is the hope. Now, if people are going to engage in crimes, then that is definitely a problem. And hopefully that won't happen. And I do note that for a number of crimes such as murder or rape under federal law, there is no statute of limitations. So the next administration can come in and look at all these files, choose to release them, choose to prosecute. And again, this is not just about Donald Trump. There are multiple perpetrators and co-conspirators. You have former Prince Andrew. I showed photos of Pam Bondi where she acknowledged former Prince Andrew was with a sex traffic victim. That photo by itself is evidence of a crime. And there's all this other evidence and books and other documents about former Prince Andrew. She could indict him right now, and a grand jury would indict. I don't know why she doesn't do that. Well, if we know that there is evidence of crimes contained within these files, people who should be held to account, and you have DOJ officials whose job is to hold criminals to account, who instead are deferring to protecting these people, aren't these DOJ officials like Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and Cash Patel basically presenting themselves as accessories after the fact? Isn't this evidence of them committing the crime because they were supposed to, A, release these files in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and B, prosecute them in accordance with their own oath to the U.S. Constitution as law enforcement officials at the DOJ? Pam Bondi and Cash Patel committed perjury. That is a crime. And obviously, Pam Bondi is not going to prosecute herself. Right. But another administration could. And then you have just unbelievable screw-ups where they put victims' names out, unredacted, and they ruin a number of lives. And so you're looking at this and you just wonder, were they careless or were they malicious? It is just very disappointing and depressing to see, and I don't know how Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, and Todd Blanche look at themselves in the mirror. What responsibility does a subsequent Democratic administration have to fearlessly and relentlessly pursuing justice? And I ask that as someone who watched the Merrick Garland Department of Justice drag its feet on holding Trump accountable for two years because they wanted to avoid the optics of politicization. But in effect, all you do by trying to avoid a politicized DOJ is basically give a free pass to a political figure and kind of swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. And so what responsibility does the next attorney general who has some commitment to the rule of law have to relentlessly, fearlessly pursuing this stuff as opposed to what we saw in past administrations? The reason you see a number of MAGA influencers now turning against Trump on Epstein files is because people understand this isn't just about Donald Trump. This is about a global pedophilia sex operation that had over a thousand victims. We're talking about girls who were raped and sexually assaulted, and you can't just make that go away or not deal with it or say it's just on Epstein. And people have this innate sense of justice and accountability, and people want that to happen. And whether it falls on a perpetrator who happens to be a Republican or a Democrat or independent doesn't really matter. People who are engaged in this despicable, horrendous behavior need to be held accountable. And I think the American public, whether you're right or left, just can't understand why the Trump Department of Justice looks like it's doing a cover up of this horrific sex operation that Epstein was engaged in. You know, you had mentioned at the top there are only a few Republicans who are actually participating in trying to uncover what's happening here. You had mentioned Thomas Massey, Ana Paulina Luna, Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Greene before she had left Congress, Lauren Boebert. So, you know, the list is small. Have you heard from any Republican colleagues behind the scenes? And granted, I know that, you know, we've heard this song before where you have Republicans kind of murmur things behind the scenes, but they're too afraid to say it publicly. Does that exist in this scenario or are they really all in, you know, even on the issue of protecting a notorious pedophile? You have to be in a cult to think that Donald Trump is completely innocent with regard to Epstein files. Remember that, you know, Trump fought very hard to not have these files released. So some of them are in a cult and I think they believe that. But I think the majority understand that he is implicated in these files. And I just want to note that during the House Judiciary Committee hearing with Pam Bondi, only two Republicans asked about the Epstein files, Thomas Massey and Chip Roy. Every single other Republican avoided that issue. And that tells you all you need to know about the state of the Republican Party. Yeah, I think that's perfectly put. We'll leave it there. Congressman, I appreciate your time on this. Thank you so much. Thank you.