Sen. Kennedy READS the Epstein Receipts: Bondi STUNNED by “Blackmail” Evidence

[0:00] If I were your special counsel and you had appointed me and I wanted to get the records of a sitting United States senator, [0:11] is that something you would expect me to tell you as attorney general of the United States? [0:16] They better have. [0:20] Yeah. [0:20] Do we know in this instance of the eight sitting United States senators if they told Attorney General Garland? [0:28] Senator, I just learned about this very recently, as did Director Patel, [0:33] and we cannot discuss the details. [0:36] I don't know many of the details. [0:37] Well, maybe we ought to get Attorney General Garland here. [0:40] Pam Bondi just walked into a buzzsaw of actual receipts, literal paper trails, [0:46] and the result was a master class in what happens when the unauditable meets a senator who actually reads the fine print. [0:54] We're not just talking about a few missing files here. [0:57] We are talking about the potential illegal spying of eight sitting United States senators. [1:02] Senator John Kennedy. [1:04] Senator John Kennedy didn't come with gotcha questions. [1:06] He came with the law and a demand for the subpoena applications that the Department of Justice is currently hiding in the shadows. [1:14] When Bondi tried to dodge using the standard pending investigation script, [1:18] Kennedy had the documents ready to show that the privacy of the highest levels of our government has been invaded [1:23] and nobody is being held accountable. [1:27] Stay until the end, because the moment Kennedy brings up the blackmail receipts regarding the Epstein case, [1:33] we'll show you exactly. [1:34] Why they fight transparency so hard. [1:38] This is how you audit a system that thinks it's above the law. [1:42] General, welcome. [1:47] Let's suppose that I'm appointed special counsel at the Department of Justice and I go to the two telecommunication companies, [2:01] the phone companies, let's let's let's single out AT&T and I say, look, I know you're busy, [2:07] but I want to see the a copy of the phone records of the sitting United States senator. [2:16] They're not going to just give them to me. [2:17] Are they. [2:20] No, Senator, of course not. [2:22] In fact, they're probably going to ask me what what planet I just parachute it in from. [2:27] Aren't they. [2:28] Yes, Senator. [2:29] They're going to tell me to come back with a subpoena, aren't they? [2:32] Yes, senator. [2:33] Okay. [2:36] What do I have to show in that subpoena to get those phone records of a sitting? [2:42] Did I mentioned it was a sitting United States senator? [2:45] I can't remember. [2:46] What do I have to show to get a [2:48] the phone record everything? [2:49] records of a sitting United States senator yes senator there were actually [2:52] eight sitting United States and you would have to have cause I'm sorry what [2:58] do I have to show you would have to have cause to get the good cause and probable [3:02] cause probable cause okay and and probably go out probable cause or if [3:12] it's a subpoena deuces take them good cause to show what you would need good [3:22] cause for a subpoena ducus tecum and what you would have to show is that you [3:25] believed a crime had been committed or there there was a possibility of a crime [3:29] or that could lead to other crimes we frequently in criminal enterprises [3:34] Savannah's sitting United States senator senator they would have to have believed [3:40] you were part of a criminal conspiracy is my understanding what would a judge [3:47] have to sign off on it on the on the subpoena yes senator well for a subpoena [3:55] ducus tecum Jack Smith probably took it straight to the judge now the the phone [4:03] companies [4:05] particularly their general counsel if they're worried about civil liability [4:09] even with a subpoena to get the phone records of a sitting United States [4:18] senator did I mention it was a sitting United States senator yes senator the [4:24] general counsel for that phone company let's say AT&T they have the right to [4:32] seek to quash that subpoena don't they phone companies frequently do that yeah [4:39] and and a smart general counsel for that phone company is going to call for [4:47] a sitting United States senator and so would you like to weigh in on this would [4:52] you like me to quash the subpoena we're talking about invading someone's privacy [4:59] here by a sitting United States Senate could could the general counsel for the [5:06] phone company do that well senator if they believe that a crime could have [5:10] been committed they could not tip off the person who committed the crime again [5:15] I can't comment on details of this yeah [5:20] I'm just asking you theoretically. [5:23] I've never seen you commit a crime, Senator Kennedy. [5:24] But let's suppose, okay, they didn't want to tip off the sitting United States senator. [5:30] But the phone company and the general counsel for the phone company or companies, if there were more than one involved, could say, you know, this is serious as an aneurysm. [5:41] This is serious as four heart attacks and a stroke. [5:44] This is a sitting United States senator. [5:46] So general counsel would likely advise the CEO, you need to file a motion to quash. [5:54] The telephone companies could have contested those subpoenas, could they not? [5:59] Hypothetically, yes. [6:00] I can't talk about the facts of this particular case. [6:03] We're talking hypothetically. [6:05] Senator subpoenas are issued all the time through phone companies working with the general counsel. [6:10] But they can file a motion to quash. [6:13] They could, yes. [6:14] Yeah. [6:14] In any case. [6:15] And if they should have filed a motion to quash. [6:20] And a reasonable person would have filed a motion to quash because this is a sitting United States senator. [6:28] And they didn't file a motion to quash, they would incur civil liability, wouldn't they? [6:40] Senator, typically phone companies follow a subpoena from a United States attorney. [6:48] No, they do, but they don't have to. [6:50] They could challenge it, Senator. [6:52] Yeah. [6:52] And if they don't challenge it, they better have a damn good reason. [7:01] Right? [7:01] Right? [7:06] Senator, I can't talk about the facts of this particular case. [7:09] This is just a hypothetical. [7:09] In general, hypothetically, Senator, maybe they didn't recognize any of the names of the eight sitting United States senators. [7:17] Uh-huh, hypothetically. [7:18] That was a joke. [7:24] Or maybe they should have gone to Amazon and bought some testicles online instead of just saying, [7:31] Sure, I'll just show you the phone records of a sitting United States senator on the basis of an administrative subpoena. [7:41] Now, do you have copies? [7:43] Do you have copies of the subpoena applications for these eight senators? [7:47] Senator, I can't discuss anything regarding this case with you. [7:49] You can't even tell me if you have copies? [7:51] I can't discuss any of this with you, sir. [7:52] All right, when are you going to, General, when are you going to be able to discuss it? [7:56] I can't discuss whether there is or is not a pending investigation, Senator. [8:01] I understand, but let's just say, if there is a pending investigation, I don't want this to get swept under the rug, okay, because I think you're going to get pushback from all quarters. [8:10] I think the telecommunication companies are going to be all over you like a bat. [8:15] I think they're going to be all over you like a bat, Rash, because they've got liability here for just turning over these records when they knew what was going on. [8:25] I think some FBI agents may have some liability here. [8:31] I think a special counsel might have some liability here. [8:34] If I were your special counsel and you had appointed me and I wanted to get the records of a sitting United States senator, is that something you would expect me to tell you as Attorney General of the United States? [8:52] They better have. [8:54] Yeah. [8:54] Yeah. [8:55] Do we know in this instance of the eight sitting United States senators, if they told Attorney General Garland? [9:02] Senator, I just learned about this very recently, as did Director Patel, and we cannot discuss the details. [9:10] I don't know many of the details. [9:11] Well, maybe we ought to get Attorney General Garland here. [9:16] Do you know if the special counsel told FBI Director Wray? [9:27] Is that something? [9:28] Let me put it another way. [9:29] If I were your special counsel and you were the director of the FBI and I'm trying to get the phone records of a sitting United States senator, did I mention it was a sitting United States senator? [9:40] Is that something that you would expect me to tell you as director of the FBI? [9:47] In general, I would believe the FBI would help execute the subpoena. [9:51] Notice the precision. [9:53] Kennedy isn't attacking her character. [9:55] He is entering the normal way the DOJ works into the record, page by page. [9:59] He establishes the principle. [10:01] The probable cause requirement and the fact that a judge must sign off on these subpoenas. [10:06] He is laying the foundation for a massive breach of protocol. [10:10] The real receipt here isn't just what was said, it's what was missing. [10:16] Kennedy asks a direct, simple question. [10:19] Do you have copies of the subpoena applications? [10:22] Bondi's response is the ultimate silence that can't be defended. [10:26] She claims she can't even tell him if she has copies. [10:30] In a transparent republic, the paper trail is the law. [10:32] The paper trail is the law. [10:32] The paper trail is the law. [10:32] The paper trail is the law. [10:32] The paper trail is the law. [10:33] The paper trail is the law. [10:33] The paper trail is the law. [10:33] The paper trail is the law. [10:33] The paper trail is the law. [10:33] The paper trail is the law. [10:33] the law. When the attorney general's office refuses to acknowledge even the existence of [10:39] the paperwork used to spy on lawmakers, sunlight isn't just a suggestion. It's a requirement for [10:46] survival. This is the receipt structure in action. You force the witness to acknowledge their own [10:53] paperwork, or in this case, their refusal to provide it. Kennedy highlights that the [10:58] telecommunications companies, like AT&T, have a damn good reason to be terrified of legal [11:04] responsibility because they turned over these records without a fight. He is effectively showing [11:10] that the DOJ, the FBI, and big tech have formed a closed loop where your privacy, and even a [11:16] senator's privacy, is traded in secret. Bondi's refusal to discuss the details, even in theory, [11:23] is a glaring admission that the receipts are radioactive. [11:27] Okay, I want to switch to another subject in the 12 minutes that I have left since everybody else [11:36] got to go. [11:36] Um, I've got to ask you about this, General. Secretary Howard Lutnick, on October 1, gave an [11:47] interview to the New York Post about Mr. Epstein, and he described Mr. Epstein as, quote, [11:57] the greatest blackmailer ever, close quote. Have you reviewed that transcript of that interview? [12:03] I have not reviewed the transcript, but I saw the clip of it. [12:06] Okay. It appears that Secretary Lutnick was, [12:12] was Mr. Epstein's next-door neighbor. In fact, their, their, their townhomes, um, shared a wall. [12:21] Um, and, and the, uh, the reporter that was asking, talking to Mr. Lutnick, uh, she asked [12:32] how, how other prominent men could have been associated with Epstein when Mr. Lutnick could [12:38] immediately sense that he was a, quote, pervert. And then Secretary Lutnick said, or rather the [12:45] reporter said, did they see it and ignore it? [12:48] Do you remember that from the interview? [12:50] I do. [12:52] And Commerce Secretary Lutnick said, no, they participated. And then Commerce Secretary Lutnick [13:03] goes on to say, quote, that's what his M.O. was. You know, get a massage, get a massage. [13:11] And what happened in that massage room, I assume was a video. This guy was the greatest black [13:19] blackmailer ever, blackmailed people. That's how he had money, end quote. [13:24] Is that true? [13:26] Senator, as our July memo said, we did not uncover evidence. This case has gone through [13:34] three administrations, as well as former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. [13:40] I know, I know, I know that, Pam. But have you, have you interviewed Secretary Lutnick? [13:44] No, Senator. [13:45] Do you plan to? [13:47] If he wants to talk to the FBI or the FBI wants to talk to him, that is more than on [13:52] Don't you think you ought to talk to him after this interview? [13:54] Senator, if, if Howard Lutnick wants to speak to the FBI and if Director Patel wants to speak to, [13:59] Howard Lutnick, absolutely. [14:01] If the phone records were the receipts of government overreach, the Epstein discussion [14:06] is the receipt of government carelessness. Kennedy brings up the October 1st interview [14:12] with Howard Lutnick, where the Secretary of Commerce, Epstein's actual next-door neighbor, [14:17] described Epstein as the greatest blackmailer ever and stated that prominent men didn't [14:22] just ignore the abuse, they participated. Bondi's defense. She saw the clip, but she [14:29] has not reviewed the transcript. [14:30] Kennedy exposes the nonsense of this see-no-evil approach. He asks the common sense question, [14:37] don't you think you ought to talk to him? Bondi's deflection, claiming they haven't [14:42] uncovered evidence across three administrations, is exactly why the receipts method is so vital. [14:49] It proves that the government isn't failing to find the truth. It's failing to look for it, [14:55] even when the neighbor of the perpetrator is a sitting cabinet member. When you print money [14:59] in the shadows, a counterfeit is not a good thing. When you print money in the shadows, [15:00] a counterfeit is a good thing. When you print money in the shadows, a counterfeit is a good thing. [15:01] When you print money in the shadows, a counterfeit is a good thing. When you print money in the shadows, [15:01] accountability dies. And when you conduct investigations in the shadows, justice is [15:06] buried. This is why they fear transparency. Because once you have the transcript, once [15:11] you have the application, the rule by experts can no longer hide behind their titles. [15:16] This isn't just about Pam Bondi or a single hearing, it's about a broader pattern where [15:22] the government loses track of its ethical and legal obligations. [15:26] Whether it's $3.7 trillion at the Fed, or the phone records of eight senators, or the [15:31] the goal is the same, to make the process so unclear that no one can find the receipts. [15:37] But as we saw today, when you bring the literal documents to the table, [15:43] the silence that can't be defended becomes the loudest thing in the room. [15:48] Bondi's inability to confirm if she even possesses the subpoena applications [15:53] is a 4K look at a system that has forgotten who it works for— [15:57] sound money, limited government, and actual accountability. [16:01] These shouldn't be radical ideas, yet in 2025, they are treated like secrets. [16:07] We have to stop letting them spread the losses to every one of their failed investigations [16:13] while they keep the profits for themselves of their political power. [16:17] The question remains, if the FBI won't talk to a cabinet member who says he witnessed a blackmail ring, [16:23] who will they talk to? [16:25] And if they can spy on eight senators without a motion to quash, what are they doing to you? [16:30] Drop a comment below. [16:33] Should we audit the DOJ's subpoena process immediately, [16:36] or do we need a full, independent investigation into the Epstein blackmail receipts first? [16:41] Let's name names. Don't let this get swept under the rug.