Legal expert reacts to DOJ saying Bondi won't appear for Epstein deposition

[0:00] Lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee threatening contempt of Congress chargers [0:03] against the newly fired Attorney General Pam Bondi if she does not testify about her handling [0:08] of the Epstein files next week. The Justice Department tried to give her cover today, [0:12] saying, quote, because Ms. Bondi no longer can testify in her official capacity as Attorney [0:16] General, the Department's position is that the subpoena no longer obligates her to appear next [0:22] week. The top Democrat on that panel now threatening to hold her in contempt of Congress, [0:26] and he may just get support from the Republicans on the committee, at least Representative Nancy [0:32] Mace, who led the subpoena effort in the first place. Congresswoman Mace posting this today, [0:36] Pam Bondi cannot escape accountability. The American people deserve answers, [0:41] and we expect her to appear as soon as a new date is set. My political sources are back with me and [0:46] joined by my legal source, the former federal prosecutor, Ellie Honig. Ellie, so the DOJ says [0:52] she's not Attorney General, subpoena's not valid. True? No, that's a bogus argument, [0:59] John. So here's why. A subpoena is simply a command to a witness to provide relevant information [1:04] if they have any. As we sit here right now, former Attorney General Pam Bondi has the exact same [1:09] information that she had a week ago when she was still the sitting AG. Now, DOJ has come up with this [1:14] distinction of, well, she's not the AG anymore, therefore the subpoena's invalid. First of all, [1:19] the subpoena is to Pam Bondi. It's not to current occupant of the office. Second of all, [1:24] if that subpoena meant whoever the current AG is, DOJ would be offering up Todd Blanche, [1:29] which they're not doing. And third of all, John, this committee has already subpoenaed several [1:33] prior AGs, including Eric Holder, including Bill Barr, and including Merrick Garland. So [1:39] this remains valid. Democratic Congressman Garcia, the ranking member, says he would try to hold her [1:44] in contempt if she doesn't appear. How would you expect that to play out? They wouldn't have the votes, [1:48] would they? So the oversight committee, all the Democrats would need to be joined by three [1:54] Republicans on the committee to get a majority. So we know Nancy Mace is one. Will they have two [1:59] others? Who knows? If it gets through the oversight committee, then it goes to the full [2:02] House. But here's the thing, John, if the full House votes contempt, then it goes over to DOJ [2:07] for potential prosecution. I am quite certain Todd Blanche will not authorize a prosecution [2:11] of Pam Bondi. But it's worth saying, for a DOJ, Pam Bondi, and Todd Blanche alike, [2:16] who love to congratulate themselves for being the most transparent in history, [2:20] that would be a bad look to take a contempt charge from the oversight committee or the [2:24] full House. Quick one here. Is it possible they may have [2:27] to reissue the subpoena for Pam Bondi citizen, not Pam Bondi attorney general? [2:32] Yeah. If the defense here is going to be on some technicality, then it may be worth the 10 [2:36] minutes it takes to just retype the subpoena. If that's going to settle this, sure. [2:41] So, Scott, when she was attorney general, Pam Bondi says this is the most transparent [2:44] administration in history. As you know, several Republicans, I shouldn't say a lot, [2:50] several Republicans who say that doesn't hold water, Democrats say that doesn't hold water. [2:53] Do you think she should just testify? I mean, clearly, the White House would like this to [2:56] go away. She would like this to go away. But there are enough Republicans to make sure [2:59] it's not going to go away. And there's an election in November. Should they get this over [3:02] with? Well, I don't have a problem with her actually testifying. I also don't have a problem [3:07] with the White House asserting whatever privileges it thinks it has. And I don't have a problem [3:11] with the committee asserting whatever authority it thinks it has. But bottom line, if she goes [3:16] and answers questions and answers them truthfully and transparently, I don't personally have [3:20] a problem with that. I think Commerce Secretary Lutnik is also going into the oversight committee [3:24] sometime in the next few weeks. So whether she goes in right now or not, there's going [3:28] to be another round of this. Look, people still have questions about it. She was obviously there [3:33] at the top of DOJ when that law was passed and all these files were being released. So [3:37] I think the American people would have some expectation that you would show up and answer [3:41] to the best of your ability. But again, the administration may have some legitimate arguments [3:46] about information that they would deem privileged. And of course, there's ways to litigate that. [3:52] Is part of the argument here, Congressman Garcia says he'll push for contempt. They might get [3:57] that through the committee with Congressman Mace and a couple others. They're not going to get [4:00] it through the floor. Should part of the argument be here, you know, the odds are today, seven [4:05] months is a long time, but the odds are today there'll be a Democratic majority on that committee [4:08] next year. So you're coming now or coming later? [4:12] The main argument is the victims deserve it. And if you, I have worked with victims of sexual [4:17] assault and rape, and if you are serious about being transparent, then you go and you answer [4:21] the questions. And if you don't, then you're not serious. And in the context of this midterm [4:26] election, it reminds voters that this DOJ is protecting Donald Trump and asked the question, [4:33] what are you afraid of? And these victims, these survivors, they're not going away. It doesn't [4:37] matter who's in Congress. They're going to keep up this fight. And the echo chamber that we were [4:42] talking about in the last segment, they're going to keep up this conversation. So either you believe [4:49] that these women deserve justice or you don't. And if you, you're going to be found out if you won't [4:54] go answer questions. Wait, protecting Donald Trump from what? Protecting Donald Trump from [4:58] whatever else is in the files. I mean, it is the apparent, whether they are or not, it certainly [5:02] gives the appearance that they're protecting him. So you're promoting the unfounded conspiracy [5:07] theory that he has something to hide in his place. So let's agree with you on that one, [5:14] but say he did promise he would release as much as possible. That's right. He signed the law. [5:16] And they haven't done that. And he hasn't made them do it. I'm joined now by Democratic [5:20] Congressman James Walkinshaw of Virginia, who sits on the House Oversight Committee. [5:25] Congressman Blaccombe, I mean, why do you believe the DOJ does not want her to testify? [5:32] Well, it's clear that the DOJ failed to comply with the law. The Epstein Files Transparency Act [5:38] was very clear. The files, all the files had to be released with a narrow category of redactions [5:44] allowed. They missed the deadline to release the files. They still haven't released two and a half to [5:50] three million files, and they illegally redacted thousands of files. And they don't want her to [5:56] testify because we would ask her questions about that. Who made the decision to illegally redact [6:02] certain files? Who made the decision to stop releasing files before the law was fully complied [6:09] with? What conversations, if any, took place with President Trump about those decisions? They don't [6:14] want her to answer questions like that. I think it's quite clear. [6:16] It's striking because there have been a number of people who have had very high-profile roles, [6:22] including a former President of the United States, who have had to answer questions. You're [6:26] talking about officials who talk to your community like the Attorney General Bill Barr, [6:30] Alex Acosta, obviously the person behind the sweetheart deal in Florida. Others, even Hillary [6:35] Clinton did her deposition as well. So talk to me about how the survivors are feeling about the [6:41] prospect of the DOJ trying to get her not to comply with what they say is no longer a relevant subpoena [6:49] because they say, you must have meant her official capacity, even though you said Pam Bondi. [6:54] Well, I think it's another betrayal of the survivors who have courageously and continuously [6:59] called for transparency and accountability. And that's what we're fighting for and pushing for. [7:05] Look, the legal argument that because she's no longer Attorney General, the subpoena is no longer [7:12] valid or doesn't apply to her is laughable on its face. The purpose of the subpoena is to get [7:17] information relevant to our investigation. That information is in Pam Bondi's head. It was in [7:22] her head before she was fired. It's in her head today after she's been fired. She needs to show up on [7:28] April 14th, fulfill her legal obligation, comply with the subpoena, and answer our questions under oath. [7:33] Contempt is always, you know, one pathway to do so. There are obviously different ways. There's the [7:39] civil contempt, a much more lengthy procedure involving a judge. There's criminal complaint, [7:43] criminal contempt, referring it back to her very own department, or a sergeant at arms taking her [7:47] into custody. What is the likelihood of any of those mechanisms working when DOJ is probably certain [7:55] not to refer her or to prosecute her in some way? Well, I think with this DOJ, certainly the avenue, [8:03] the contempt avenue most likely to succeed would be the civil avenue, which, as you pointed out, [8:08] would go to the courts and could lead to the imposition of fines, including fines levied each [8:15] day that she fails to appear and comply with the subpoena. I think that's a very valid and possible [8:20] option. We might also choose to pursue that criminal contempt option and put DOJ in the position [8:26] of refusing to prosecute and move forward. I think that would highlight, again, for the American [8:32] people, the extent of this Trump administration cover-up of the Epstein files. [8:37] There have been those who have commented and that they believe that you were fine with the [8:41] Clintons obstructing their subpoenas. That was the phrasing they used for seven months and voted [8:46] against holding them in contempt, telling you to relax. Go touch grass was part of the tweet about you. [8:51] But talk to me about why this is distinguishable from your decision to not try to hold them in [8:59] contempt. Well, actually, I voted to hold the Clintons in civil contempt. [9:04] Not criminal. That's right. I didn't support criminal contempt because I don't think that would [9:08] have got us the outcome that we wanted to, which was to have a conversation. I do think it's important [9:13] to separate Bill and Hillary Clinton here. And I said this throughout that episode. Hillary Clinton [9:17] had no information. Zero zip, zilch, nada about Epstein. No relationship. The only reason she was [9:25] forced to participate in the deposition is political purposes. Chairman Comer wanted a Hillary Clinton [9:33] scalp to put up on his wall. I think he failed. Republicans look ridiculous in that. Bill Clinton [9:38] had a relationship with Epstein. Legitimate questions were asked in that deposition. I think it was [9:43] fruitful. I'm glad that it happened. I supported civil contempt to help ensure that it did happen. [9:49] Chairman Comer set the precedent here. If you don't show up on the date and time he sets, [9:54] he moves forward with criminal contempt. I'm sure he's going to do the same for Pam Bondi if she [9:58] doesn't show up on the date and time he set, which is April 14th. If you can't get Bondi, [10:03] are you going to ask for Todd Blanche? He is now the acting attorney general. Well, I believe we can and [10:10] will get Bondi, whether it's this year or next year. But Todd Blanche, at some point, I think we'll [10:15] have to answer questions as well. And Attorney General Bondi delegated to Todd Blanche a lot of [10:21] the day-to-day authority around the Epstein files, perhaps some of the decision-making around those [10:27] redactions, as he has said. And based on what we hear from Pam Bondi, we might want to ask him [10:33] questions as well. I certainly think you'd ask about his visit to see Ghislaine Maxwell. That's just one [10:39] thing. Congressman James Walkinshaw, thank you. Thank you.