October 8, 2025 • 38 mins
The cameras were hot, the questions were sharp, and the answers—when they came—raised more doubts than certainty. We walk you through the pivotal moments of a combative Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi, from the still-murky $50,000 cash handoff to the whiplash over an “Epstein client list.” Beyond the viral clips, we unpack what real oversight should look like, why carefully chosen words matter, and how deflection corrodes public trust faster than any partisan meme.
Then we step outside the hearing room to tackle a listener’s tough question: can nonresident immigrants just use the ER for “free” care? We break down EMTALA’s limits, the hidden costs everyone pays when prevention is absent, and the political calculus that turns shutdown seasons into showdowns over immigration and healthcare. You’ll hear a clear, plain-English map of the arguments on both sides—cost-saving prevention and public health versus fairness, limits, and prioritizing citizens—without the noise of talking points.
This episode weaves accountability, health policy, and civic responsibility into a single thread: performance wins headlines, but only substance changes lives. If you’re tired of the stage play and hungry for the receipts—timelines, evidence, and straight answers—you’re in the right place. Subscribe, share with a friend who follows the news closely, and leave a review telling us where you think accountability should start.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
Empty roll- Oh, but I just changed this! We need
something bigger.
Like Charmin Mega Double XL.
You can go up to one week beforechanging the role.
Charmin Mega Double XL lasts somuch longer.
It's Joy the Go with Sharmin.
Guaranteed to fit.
SPEAKER_15 (00:15):
We are just weeks away from early voting in
Virginia's governor's race, ahistory-making matchup.
I'm News 3's Kurt Williams, andI'm sitting down one-on-one with
the Republican nominee, WinsomeEarl Sears, and the Democratic
nominee, Abigail Spamberger,helping you get to know who just
might be Virginia's first femalegovernor.
Former intelligence officer withthe CIA.
(00:38):
Yep.
Three-term congresswoman for the7th District.
Postal inspector.
All right, let's see.
Former Marine.
No, no, no.
Once a Marine.
Once a Marine.
That is right.
That is right.
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
All right.
Uh first African-American womanelected to statewide office in
Virginia.
Mother of three.
And now the Democratic nomineefor governor.
(01:00):
Former delegate.
Yes.
Grandmother.
And now the GOP gubernatorialnominee.
All right, so before we get intothe political stuff, you you
worked undercover.
That's right.
What was what was that like?
SPEAKER_13 (01:14):
It was exciting.
The whole purpose was to be ableto enter spaces and talk to
people and focus on the issuesthat would enable me to be able
to, you know, collect valuableinformation.
SPEAKER_15 (01:25):
So before we get to more political stuff, I just
have to ask, what was it likebeing a Marine?
SPEAKER_10 (01:30):
So I learned discipline, I learned
leadership.
I was a German electrician and adiesel mechanic.
SPEAKER_15 (01:36):
Do you think it in any way also helps you in some
way in this current campaign?
SPEAKER_13 (01:41):
I mean, I think uh I mean, undeniably, right?
As an intelligence officer,you're a professional ask of
questions.
Uh, so that is certainly helpfulto have a a history of of asking
questions and actually reallylistening.
SPEAKER_15 (01:54):
Does being a once a marine always a marine, does
that help you in any way in thiscurrent campaign?
SPEAKER_10 (02:01):
It does, because I understand that you have to make
sure that you come and see aboutpeople.
SPEAKER_15 (02:07):
Now to the political stuff.
I I always whenever I meet apolitician, especially in
today's climate, why are yourunning?
SPEAKER_13 (02:17):
I think at this moment, it's actually the the
chaos of this moment thatcontinues to motivate me every
day.
As it relates to the issues, I'mI'm not I I'm running to serve
Virginia.
SPEAKER_15 (02:26):
Why do this?
SPEAKER_10 (02:28):
Well, because you Okay, so I came back into
politics, right?
After being gone for 20 years.
And what would have moved melike that?
Well, I have a calling, Ibelieve.
SPEAKER_15 (02:38):
So what do these two candidates believe are the most
pressing issues for Virginians?
I'll have that for you tomorrow.
Kurt Williams, WTKR News 3.
SPEAKER_05 (02:50):
Were you consulted by the White House before they
deployed uh National Guardtroops to cities in the United
States?
SPEAKER_14 (02:59):
I am not going to discuss any internal
conversations with the WhiteHouse.
SPEAKER_01 (03:04):
Do you believe that government officials like Gregor
Bovino are obligated to followapplicable court orders, whether
they agree with them or not?
Yes or no?
SPEAKER_14 (03:14):
I wish that you loved your state of California
as much as you hate PresidentTrump.
SPEAKER_11 (03:20):
The President said we can't delay any longer, Pam,
using your name, and then goeson to tell you to prosecute a
member of this committee, toprosecute the Attorney General
of New York, and to prosecuteJames Comey.
Do you consider that a directiveto the Justice Department?
SPEAKER_14 (03:39):
Senator Clovishark, President Trump is the most
transparent president inAmerican history?
SPEAKER_15 (03:45):
Did you discuss James Comey with the President
of the United States?
He was sitting just to yourleft.
SPEAKER_14 (03:51):
Well, two seats down, yes.
Two seats down.
And I am not going to discussany conversations that I've had
or not have with the Presidentof the United States.
SPEAKER_12 (04:03):
How did you conclude that these strikes on ships or
boats in the open ocean arelegal?
SPEAKER_14 (04:12):
Senator Keynes, I'm not going to discuss any legal
advice that my department may ormay not have given or issued.
SPEAKER_03 (04:19):
Having bond with completely irrelevant far-right
internet talking points reallyis not very helpful here.
SPEAKER_08 (04:28):
It's very clear to me that when the president holds
something like that, that heconsiders the DOJ to be his law
firm and you his lawyer.
SPEAKER_14 (04:45):
I am not going to discuss pending cases because
Comey was indicted in theEastern District of Virginia by,
I may point out, one of the mostliberal grand juries in the
country.
SPEAKER_04 (04:58):
Gary Howard Lutnick on October 1 gave an interview
to the New York Post about Mr.
Epstein.
And he described Mr.
Epstein as, quote, the greatestblack mailer ever, close quote.
SPEAKER_14 (05:11):
Have you reviewed that transcript of that
interview?
I have not reviewed thetranscript, but I saw the clip
of it.
SPEAKER_04 (05:16):
Okay.
It appears that that uhSecretary Lutnick uh was Mr.
Epstein's next door neighbor.
In fact, their their theirtownhomes um shared a wall.
Um and and the uh the reporterthat was asking, talking to Mr.
uh Lutnick, uh she asked how howother prominent men could have
(05:38):
been associated with Epsteinwhen Mr.
Lutnick could immediately sensethat he was a quote pervert.
And then Secretary Lutnick said,or rather the reporter said, Did
they see it and ignore it?
Do you remember that from theinterview?
I did.
And Commerce Secretary Lutnicksaid, no.
They participated.
(05:58):
And then Commerce SecretaryLutnick goes on to say, quote,
that's what his MO was.
You know, get a massage, get amassage.
And what happened in thatmassage room, I assume, was a
video.
This guy was the greatestblackmailer ever, blackmailed
people.
That's how he had money, endquote.
SPEAKER_14 (06:19):
True.
Senator Zar July Memo said wedid not uncover evidence.
This case has gone through threeadministrations, as well as
former U.S.
determinants.
SPEAKER_04 (06:29):
I'm not the pamphlet.
Have you have you interviewedSecretary Lutnick?
SPEAKER_14 (06:33):
No, Senator.
Do you plan to?
If he wants to talk to the FBIor the FBI wants to talk to him,
that is more than on the Don'tyou think you ought to talk to
him after this interview?
Senator, if if Howard Lutnickwants to speak to the FBI and if
Director Patel wants to speak toHoward Lutnick, absolutely.
Okay.
SPEAKER_04 (06:47):
Maybe we'll get Mr.
SPEAKER_06 (06:48):
Lutnick in here too, Mr.
Chair.
Now I said that Attorney GeneralBondy was forced to answer
questions about Howard Lutnickbecause that's the normal
procedure that cabinet membersfind themselves in when
testifying to the Senate.
But we discovered today that themost incompetent attorney
general in history only feelsforced to answer a question if
the senator asking the questionis a Republican.
But when Democrats askquestions, she simply refuses to
(07:11):
answer them.
And that was unimaginable beforeDonald Trump assembled the most
incompetent cabinet in history.
The question about the Trumpcabinet before they were
confirmed was not just how couldthey survive confirmation
hearings, but how could theysurvive any Senate hearing about
anything, including routineoversight of their department?
And the answer has now becomeobvious.
They will simply refuse toanswer questions from Democrats.
Prior to this incompetentcabinet, no one in Washington
(07:34):
knew that that was an option.
If a Democratic Secretary of theTreasury ever refused to answer
a question from a Republicanduring a Senate Finance
Committee hearing when I was thestaff director of that
committee, and Dan PatrickMoynihan was the chairman of
that committee, ChairmanMoynihan would have ordered the
Democratic Secretary of theTreasury or the Democratic
Secretary of Health and HumanServices or any other Democratic
cabinet member appearing beforethat committee to answer that
(07:54):
Republican Senator's questions.
And Chairman Moyhan would havedone that when he was chairman
of the Senate Environment PublicWorks Committee.
That's the way it used to work.
You had to answer the questions.
But the most cowardly Senate inhistory, the current Republican
Senate, has decided to sit idlyand silently by on their side of
(08:15):
the room, while Trump appointeesnot only refuse to answer
Democratic senators' questions,they've decided to publicly
attack the Democratic senatorsfor asking questions.
We've seen the lethally stupidand dangerous Robert Kennedy
Jr., who owes his job entirelyto his father's name, do this
when he testifies to the Senate.
We've seen Donald Trump'scomically inept FBI director
tried to do it.
And today it was Donald Trump'sattorney general's turn.
(08:38):
She's the first attorney generalin history to preside over a
department that has shut downall an investigation into a
high-ranking member of theadministration who was
reportedly caught on an FBIvideo accepting$50,000 in cash
from undercover FBI agents lastyear.
SPEAKER_03 (08:53):
What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI
paid to Mr.
Holman in a paper bag,evidently?
SPEAKER_14 (09:05):
Senator S.
Deputy Attorney General ToddBlanche recently stated the
investigation of Mr.
Holman was subjected to a fullreview by the FBI agents and DOJ
prosecutors.
They found no credible evidenceof any wrongdoing.
SPEAKER_03 (09:17):
And that was not my question.
My question was (09:18):
what became of the$50,000 in cash that the FBI
delivered, evidently in a paperbag, to Mr.
Holman?
SPEAKER_14 (09:26):
Senator, I'd look at your facts.
SPEAKER_03 (09:31):
Are you saying that they did not deliver$50,000 in
cash to Mr.
Holman?
SPEAKER_14 (09:34):
Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr.
Holman was subjected to a fullreview of the by the FBI agents.
By Department of Justiceprosecutors.
They found no evidence ofwrongdoing.
SPEAKER_03 (09:45):
That's a different question.
What became of the$50,000?
Did the FBI get it back?
SPEAKER_14 (09:50):
Mr.
Whitehouse, excuse me.
Senator Whitehouse, you'rewelcome to talk to the FBI.
SPEAKER_03 (09:54):
The report to you, can't you answer this question?
SPEAKER_14 (09:56):
Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to discuss this
with Director Patel.
SPEAKER_03 (10:00):
Did Homan keep the $50,000?
SPEAKER_14 (10:04):
As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch recently
stated, the investigation of Mr.
White House.
SPEAKER_03 (10:10):
I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer
from you to a very simple.
SPEAKER_14 (10:12):
By the FBI agents and the DOJ.
They found no credible evidenceof wrongdoing.
You know, you're very concernedabout money and people taking
money and you know against darkmoney groups.
You work with dark money groupsall the time, Senator
Whitehouse.
SPEAKER_03 (10:25):
Did you know whether or not in that investigation
they looked at whether the 2024$50,000 payment to Mr.
Homan was declared by him on histax returns?
SPEAKER_14 (10:37):
Senator, I would be more concerned if I were you
when you talk about corruptionand money that you that when you
pushed for legislation thatwould subsidize your wife's
company.
SPEAKER_03 (10:50):
So having you respond with completely
irrelevant far-right internettalking points really is not
very helpful here.
I'd like, Mr.
Chairman, you'd generally liketo have us be able to get
answers to know, and we'llfollow up with a QFR.
And to extend Patel wants toanswer, that would be great as
well.
What happened to the$50,000?
Did Homan keep it?
(11:11):
Did the FBI get it back?
If he kept it, did he put it onhis tax returns?
Pretty simple questions.
SPEAKER_06 (11:18):
Did he keep it?
Does he have it?
Is it at home?
Pretty simple questions.
And not one answer.
SPEAKER_08 (11:25):
Last year, President Trump's new border czar, now
Border Tsar, Tom Holman, was uhvideotaped taking a bag with
$50,000 in cash from undercoverFBI agents after suggesting he
could help with governmentcontracts.
Sounds like a bribe.
Two weeks ago, DOJ officialsreportedly shut down the bribery
investigation into Mr.
(11:46):
Holman.
unknown (11:47):
Ms.
SPEAKER_08 (11:47):
Bondi, did you approve closing the uh Holman
investigation?
Bribery investigation?
SPEAKER_14 (11:55):
Senator Perono, as I stated earlier, the Department
of Justice and the FBI conducteda thorough review and they found
no credible evidence of anywrongdoing.
You were also on video outsidethe White House protesting with
a group called CASA where Antifamembers were.
SPEAKER_08 (12:15):
Does that mean you're a member of Antifa?
You know, I simply asked thequestion as to whether or not
you approve the shutting down ofthe investigation of Mr.
Holman.
I have to assume that you didbecause the FBI reports to you,
but the American people wouldlook at the situation where this
person is taking a$50,000 incash, no less, and that you
testified today that a thoroughinvestigation was done.
(12:37):
Now, I have to assume I concludethat since no wrongdoing was
determined, the uh in answer toSenator Whitehouse's question,
he kept the money.
He kept the money, and I hopethat he put that on his uh tax
returns as income.
SPEAKER_02 (12:50):
You know, there's a tape, right, with uh Mr.
Homan.
I mean, first of all, is there atape in that has audio and video
of the transfer of the 50,000?
SPEAKER_14 (12:58):
You would have to talk to Director Patel about
that.
SPEAKER_02 (13:01):
No, I'm I I'm talking to you.
SPEAKER_14 (13:03):
I don't know the answer, Senator.
SPEAKER_02 (13:04):
You do know the answer.
SPEAKER_14 (13:05):
Don't call me a liar.
I didn't call you a liar.
You just said I know the answer.
I said I don't know the answer.
You have to talk to DirectorPatel.
What I said is thatinvestigation was closed.
SPEAKER_02 (13:13):
If you don't know, why don't you know whether there
was a tape and video?
SPEAKER_14 (13:17):
Senator, I believe that was resolved prior to my
confirmation as attorneygeneral.
SPEAKER_02 (13:22):
Do you think that it is of public interest for the
people to know what happened tothe 50 grand that the FBI turned
over to Holman?
SPEAKER_14 (13:28):
Did you hear what I just said?
That was resolved prior to myconfirmation as attorney
general.
That's why I said I wouldn't go.
SPEAKER_02 (13:35):
It's not resolved.
There's$50,000.
Holman has it or somebody hasit.
Do you have no interest inknowing where it is?
SPEAKER_06 (13:42):
You're not going to sit here and slander Tom Holman.
Well, she was right about that.
He was not sitting thereslandering Tom Holman.
And every lawyer in the roomknows there was not one word of
slander against Tom Holman inthat room.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
did not take the$50,000.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
don't still have the$50,000.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
(14:04):
gave the$50,000 back to the FBI.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
declared the$50,000 on my taxreturn because it was legitimate
income.
And in no version of theexecutive branch of this
government in history prior toDonald Trump, would it be
possible for a member of theadministration to be caught on
an FBI video taking$50,000 incash from undercover FBI agents
and still have a job in thatadministration and never be
(14:27):
required to tell anyone whathappened to the$50,000?
That is a corruption level thatno previous administration has
ever reached.
And the most incompetentattorney general in history
refuses to answer everylegitimate question about that.
The senior Democrat on thecommittee asked the Attorney
General about her most infamouspublic disagreement with
(14:48):
herself.
SPEAKER_05 (14:49):
In February, you made a public claim that the
Epstein client list was, quote,sitting on my desk right now for
review.
End of quote.
You then produced already publicinformation and no client list
in a major media event hosted atthe White House.
Attorney General Bondy, why didyou publicly claim to have the
Epstein client list waiting foryour review and then produce
nothing relevant to that claim?
SPEAKER_14 (15:07):
Senator Dur Senator Durbin, if you listened to my
entire clip on that, I said Ihad not reviewed it yet.
And if you see our memo onEpstein, you will see excuse me,
our memo on Epstein clearlypoints out that there was no
client list.
SPEAKER_06 (15:27):
Okay, let's do what you wants us to do.
Let's listen to exactly what shesaid in that TV interview.
This is something Donald Trumphas talked about.
That DOJ may be releasing thelist of Jeffrey Epstein's
clients.
Will that really happen?
SPEAKER_14 (15:38):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Um that's been a directive byPresident Trump.
SPEAKER_06 (15:43):
She was asked about the list of Jeffrey Epstein's
clients, and she said, it issitting on my desk right now.
She was not asked about theEpstein files.
She was not asked about thethousands of pages of paper and
the legal filings and theEpstein files.
She was asked about what couldbe one piece of paper, one page
of the Epstein files, the listof Jeffrey Epstein's clients,
and she said, it is sitting onmy desk right now.
(16:04):
And then she allowed an unsignedJustice Department statement to
be released saying, there is noEpstein planning list.
It is not a matter of listeningcarefully to what she said on
Fox to find out that there's noinconsistency.
There is a shockinginconsistency.
Listening carefully to what shesaid on Fox proves that she has
contradicted herself.
(16:25):
That is something that very,very few of the confirmed 87
attorneys general of the UnitedStates have ever publicly done.
Most of our attorneys general,from the first in President
Washington's administration,Edmund Jennings Randolph, right
through to the Bidenadministration, never once
publicly contradictedthemselves.
It is something that mostlawyers in a lifetime of
(16:45):
practice never do.
Publicly contradict themselves.
It doesn't happen.
But it is what the mostincompetent attorney general in
history is now most famous for.
Senator Whitehouse had aquestion about something else
that might be in the Epsteinfiles.
SPEAKER_03 (17:00):
Let me ask you something else.
There's been public reportingthat Jeffrey Epstein showed
people photos of President Trumpwith half-naked young women.
Do you know if the FBI foundthose photographs in their
search of Jeffrey Epstein's safeor premises or otherwise?
Have you seen any such thing?
SPEAKER_14 (17:17):
You know, Senator Whitehouse, you sit here and
make salacious remarks, onceagain trying to slander
President Trump left and right,when you're the one who was
taking money from one ofEpstein's closest confidants, I
believe.
(17:39):
Yeah, you're pulling me onPresident Trump and some
photograph with Epstein?
SPEAKER_03 (17:43):
Come on.
The question is Did the FBI findthose photographs that have been
discussed publicly by a witnesswho claimed Jeffrey Epstein
showed them to him?
You don't know anything aboutthat.
Okay.
SPEAKER_06 (17:58):
Um here's what some why don't we cut to something
else?
Why didn't you say no?
Does the FBI have, quote, photosof President Trump with
half-naked young women?
Do you know if the FBI foundthose photographs in their
search of Jeffrey Epstein's safeor premises or otherwise?
(18:20):
Have you seen any such thing?
Why didn't she say no?
When she was asked by aRepublican Senator, did you see
the video of Howard Lutlettalked about Jeffrey Epstein?
She said yes.
She answered all thosequestions.
She knows how to answer yes orno questions.
Why wouldn't Donald Trump'sattorney general want to shut
down the possibility that theEpstein files contain
photographs that were in JeffreyEpstein's possession of Donald
(18:42):
Trump with very young women?
Why didn't she say no?
Committee members asked theirquestions in order of seniority
on the committee.
And so our first guest tonight,who is the newest Democratic
member of the committee, was thelast Democratic senator to deal
with the first attorney generalin history who will only answer
questions from senators who aremembers of her political party.
The junior most member of theJudiciary Committee chose what
(19:05):
turned out to be the bestpossible approach at that point
to an attorney general who livesin fear of answering questions.
SPEAKER_07 (19:13):
I think it's it's valuable that the American
people get a sense of whatyou've refused to answer today.
So these are just some of thequestions you refused to answer,
but or have answered withpersonal attacks on members of
this committee.
You were asked whether youconsulted with career ethics
lawyers, as you promised youwould do, during your nomination
hearing, when you approved thepresident receiving a$400
million gift from the Qataris.
(19:34):
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked what who or whatrole you may play, or who played
the role in asking that Trump'sname be flagged in any of the
Epstein documents gathered bythe FBI?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked whether Holmankept the$50,000 bag money.
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked whether Holmanpaid taxes on the$50,000 brabe
money, you refused to answerthat question.
(19:55):
You were asked, did careerprosecutors find insufficient
evidence to charge James Comey?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked, how are militarystrikes on these boats in the
Caribbean legal?
And you refuse to even ask thatquestion.
You were asked to be asked to bea good question.
Excuse me, excuse me.
Um you were asked, did youdiscuss indicting James Comey
(20:15):
with the president?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked, did you approvethe firing of any trust lawyers
who disagreed with the HewlettPacket merger?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked whether yousupport a restoration fund for
violent insurrections,insurrections to attack the
Capitol on January 6th, refusedto answer that question.
You were asked whether you werefiring career professionals,
career prosecutors just becausethey worked on January 6th
question, the January 6thinvestigations, you refused to
(20:37):
answer that question.
You were asked by my Californiacolleague whether you believe
government officials, likeimmigration officials, have to
abide by court orders.
You wouldn't even answer thatquestion.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing.
Oversight.
Excuse me.
You can attack me after my.
(20:59):
Canned attacks on you?
This is supposed to be a coupleof things.
No one needs a canned attacks onyou.
I'm trying to speak.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing of the Justice
Department.
And it comes in the wake of anindictment called for by the
president of one of his enemies.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing, and it comes
in the wake of revelations thata top administration official
took$50,000 in a bag, and thisdepartment made that
(21:20):
investigation go away.
An oversight hearing when dozensof prosecutors have been fired
simply because they worked oncases investigating the former
president.
This is another fires inCalifornia.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing in which
members of Congress can getserious answers to serious
questions about the riots inLATOS about the cover-up of
(21:43):
corruption, about theprosecution of the president's
enemies.
And when will it be?
When will it be your time thatthe members of this committee on
a bipartisan basis demandanswers to those questions and
refuse to accept the question?
SPEAKER_06 (22:05):
In all my years working in the United States
Senate, uh more hearings than Ican count, in two committees
that I was the staff directorof, I never, ever saw a witness
of any kind, cabinet member orarthur, interrupt a Senate.
Never.
That is the lost work of sanitythat preceded Donald Trump's
takeover of the RepublicanParty.
SPEAKER_09 (22:25):
Now I know y'all saw it.
Pam Bondi is strutting into theUnited States Senate as if she
has just been drafted into theSuper Bowl of politics.
And in a way, she did.
Because when you sit down infront of the Judiciary
Committee, you're not justgiving testimony you're
auditioning for history.
You're telling the country whoyou are, what you stand for.
(22:45):
And whether you've got the spineto back it up when the lights
are hot and the knives are out.
Now let me set the scene foryou.
Bondi shows up with a folder ofnotes.
Not unusual.
Everybody does it.
But here's the catch.
The cameras zoom in, andsuddenly America's watching her
talking points before she evenopens her mouth.
That's like stepping into afight gym.
(23:07):
Throwing your playbook on themat and letting your opponent
study it before the bell rings.
Rookie move.
See in politics, just like inwrestling, just like in
jiu-jitsu, confidence is halfthe battle.
If you look like you're runningon memorized lines, the crowd
tunes out.
Because conviction can't befaked forever.
People smell it.
They know when you're workingthe crowd instead of working the
(23:29):
truth.
Now, once she sat down, theDemocrats sharpened their
questions like kitchen knives.
They wanted to know, is theDepartment of Justice being
weaponized?
What about Epstein?
What about history of defendingTrump, her ties to power?
And Bondi did what a seasonedlawyer does, she pivoted, she
jabbed, she counterattacked.
Instead of answering Hadan, shestarted pointing the finger
back.
What about Democrats and theirmoney?
(23:50):
What about hypocrisy on yourside?
That's a classic move.
It's like when you're losing anargument, so you go, yeah, but
what about you?
The problem is that's not ananswer.
That's a dodge.
Now, don't get me wrong, somepeople ate it up.
They saw Bondy as a fighter,somebody not afraid to push
back.
And in this era of politics,let's be honest, the performance
(24:12):
often matters more than thesubstance.
But here's where I gotta stepback.
The Senate ain't Twitter.
It ain't a campaign rally.
It's the chamber where thenation keeps its receipts.
And when you leave more smokethan fire, those receipts will
follow you.
Think about it.
When you walk into theSiddhartham, you're not just
talking to the senators in frontof you.
You're talking to the peoplewatching at home.
(24:33):
You're talking to historians 30years from now.
You're talking to that highschool kid who's watching C-SPAN
because his civics teacher madehim, and now he's forming his
idea of what accountabilitylooks like.
That's the real audience.
And Pam Bondi didn't win them.
Here's the truth.
America's tired of the dodge,tired of the answers.
We don't expect perfection, butwe expect honesty.
(24:54):
And if you can't give that, thenat least don't insult the
intelligence of the public withpre-packaged theater, because
that's what this looked liketheater.
Now let me take this down to theground level, because politics
always feels distant until youconnect it to your own life.
Imagine you're sitting acrossfrom your boss at work and they
ask you about a mistake on yourlast project.
Instead of answering, you startrattling off all the mistakes
(25:15):
your co-workers made.
That might buy you a littletime, but it doesn't fix your
problem.
And eventually your boss isgonna say, yeah, but what about
you?
That's where Bondi foundherself.
And let me tell you in theSenate Chamber, you don't get to
skip that question.
Not for long.
Now, some folks will say,Darrell, you're being too hard
on her.
She was just defending herself,defending her team.
And listen, I get it.
(25:36):
That's her role, that's the job.
But here's where I push back.
Defending your team is fineuntil defending your team starts
to look like dodgingaccountability.
Because the department ofjustice doesn't belong to one
party, it belongs to the people.
And every time we let thesehearings turn into pure
political theater, the peoplelose fate that justice is
possible.
And fate not the Sunday morningkind, but the civic kind is
(25:57):
already running on films in thiscountry.
You strip that away, and youdon't just weaken institutions.
You weaken the nation itself.
So when I watch Bondi in thatchair sparring with senators,
clutching her folder of noteslike a lifeline, I didn't see
strength.
I saw calculation.
I saw someone trying to win thenews cycle, not trying to tell
the truth.
And maybe that's enough in thisera to survive the news cycle to
give your side enough ammo forone more round of talking
(26:18):
points.
But if that's all we expect,then we've already lowered the
bar beneath the floor.
Look, Bondi came in like a lionbut left like a stage actor
reading someone else's script.
And history, history doesn'tremember the actors.
It remembers the truth tellers,the ones who sat in that chair
and said, Here's what I know, W,here's what happened, here's
where I stand, whether peopleliked it or not.
So yeah, Pam Bondi went to theSenate.
(26:39):
She performed.
But when the lights dimmed andthe cameras packed up, America
was still left waiting foranswers, and that silence says
more than her folder of notesever could.
Welcome back to TDMs, or as wenormally say, the Darrell McLean
show, I am always happy whensome of the listerns send me
questions, and I have a greatone from Jean who asks, Why do
(26:59):
Democrats want health care fornon-resident immigrants?
Can't they just walk into anemergency room and be treated
for free?
Isn't it true hospitals can'tturn people away?
Good question.
A sharp one.
And like most sharp questions,it deserves a real answer.
Not just the surface-leveltalking points you hear on cable
news.
Let's start with the facts.
Yes, under federal law,hospitals cannot turn away
(27:22):
someone in an emergency.
That's the Mtala law, signedback in 1986 under President
Reagan.
It says if you show up to the ERand you're in critical
condition, they have tostabilize you.
Doesn't matter if you're acitizen, a visitor, undocumented
rich, poor doesn't matter.
You will get seized.
But here's the catch.
That's not the same thing ashaving health care.
That's the same as saying, ifyour house catches fire, the
(27:44):
fire department has to come putit out.
But they're not going to rebuildyour kitchen, install smoke
detectors, or make sure yourwiring isn't faulty in the first
place.
The emergency room is crisismedicine.
It's triage.
It's let's keep you from dyingright now.
What it is not is ongoing care.
They won't refill your insulinevery month.
They won't monitor your bloodpressure over years.
They won't give you cancerscreenings, mental health
(28:05):
counseling, prenatal visits, ordental care.
That kind of medicine is steady.
Preventative, everyday stuffisn't part of the law.
And no, it's not free.
That's another myth.
The hospital still sends a bill.
If the patient can't pay, guesswhat happens?
The hospital eats it, thenraises costs for everyone else.
Insurance premiums go up.
Taxpayers foot the hidden bill.
(28:25):
So when you hear people say, oh,they just get treated for free,
what they really mean is, we'reall paying for it, but through
the most expensive, independentroute possible.
Now, why does this debate alwaysheat up during a government
shutdown?
Because shutdowns aren't justabout budgets, they're about
theater.
They're about leverage.
Picture two kids in the backseatof a car fighting over who gets
(28:46):
the last French fry.
A shutdown is when they decidenobody gets fries and the whole
car starves until somebodyblinks.
During those fights, bothparties grab the loudest, most
emotional issues they can.
Immigration and healthcare,that's dynamite.
Democrats push health care forimmigrants as both a
humanitarian issue and a publichealth issue.
Their logic goes like this.
First, it's cheaper to treatpeople early than to wait until
(29:07):
they hit the ER in crisis.
A$20 prescription today canprevent a$200,000 surgery
tomorrow.
Second, disease doesn't stop atborders.
Viruses don't check passports.
If people avoid doctors becausethey can't afford it, you get
outbreaks that affect everybody.
Third, they frame it as simplefairness, immigrants buy
groceries, pay sales tax.
Many even pay into SocialSecurity with fake or borrowed
(29:28):
numbers.
Money they'll never see again.
They're contributing to thesystem but excluded from its
protections.
Republicans, meanwhile, frame itas a matter of loyalty and
limits.
Their message.
Hold on, why are we talkingabout health care for people who
aren't even citizens whenAmerican families can't afford
their own coverage?
Why give benefits away tooutsiders when veterans,
seniors, and working class folksare struggling?
(29:49):
That argument packs a punchduring a shutdown when headlines
show furloughed workers, delayedpaychecks, unpaid troops.
It becomes a potent line.
Democrats want to fundimmigrants while citizens go
without.
Now remember, The history here.
Shutdowns have been used asweapons for decades.
In the 90s, it was Clintonversus Gingrich.
In 2013, Republicans shut thegovernment down over Obamacare.
(30:11):
Remember Ted Cruz reading GreenEggs and Ham on the Senate
floor?
In 2018-2019, Trump presidedover the longest shutdown in
American history, 35 days allover border wall funding.
Workers missed paychecks, TSAagents quip, Coast Guard
families lined up at food banks.
Every time the people end up ascollateral damage, while
politicians point fingers.
So today the script is the same.
(30:32):
Democrats say health care is ahuman right even for immigrants,
and we're going to push for it,shut down or no shutdown.
Not a dime.
Not when our own people arehurting.
Not when the border's out ofcontrol.
That's why this question.
Immigrant health care alwayssurfaces during these moments.
It's not random.
It's strategic.
(30:52):
It's a wedge issue that stirsemotion, divides neatly along
party lines, and rallies eachbase.
So let's circle back to theaudience question.
Can immigrants walk into an ERand get treated?
Yes, but only for emergencies.
Is it free?
No.
The rest of us foot the bill.
Why do Democrats want moreaccess?
Because they believe it'ssmarter, cheaper, and more
(31:13):
humane to provide care up frontrather than mop up disasters
later.
Why do Republicans resist?
Because they see it as unfair,unsustainable, and politically
toxic to spend scarce dollars onpeople who aren't citizens.
At the end of the day, thisfight isn't just about
immigrants or even hospitals.
It's about what kind of countrywe want to be one that only
deals with people at the brinkof death, or one that sees
(31:34):
health care as somethingbroader.
Shutdowns just make the fightlouder, because both sides use
it to prove who they're fightingfor.
So yes, the ER will keep itsdoors open.
But that's not healthcare.
That's duct tape on a bulletwound.
The real debate is whether wewant to build a system that
works for everyone or keeppatching holes after the damage
is already done.
You ever notice how Washingtonhearings look more like a bad
(31:56):
Netflix special than actualgovernance?
Half these senators look likethey're auditioning for law and
amp order, DC unit.
You've got the grandstandingspeeches, the raised eyebrows,
the fake outrage perfectly timedfor the evening news, and
somewhere in the middle of allthat, supposedly, is the truth.
But here's the reality.
While the cameras capturetheater, real people live with
(32:17):
the fallout.
Government shutdowns leaveworkers without paychecks.
Veterans wait months for claims.
Parents sit through underfundedschools.
Taxpayers eat the bill fordysfunction.
The Bondi hearing was nodifferent.
Senators scored their stombites.
Bandai played her role.
Everyone left with theirpartisan clip ready for social
media.
And the American people leftwith nothing new.
See, this is what I mean when Isay performance versus
(32:38):
substance.
Performance wins headlines.
Substance changes lives.
But Washington keeps pickingperformance because it's easier.
It's flashier.
And the truth.
The truth requires courage.
So what we're left with is agovernment that behaves like a
stage play.
And the danger of stage plays isthis the actors leave, the
curtains fall, but the audiencestill has to go home hungry.
(32:59):
And America's been hungry forreal governance for a long time.
Let's close with this.
Pam Bondi and the Senate wasn'tnew.
We've seen this movie before.
McCarthy Hearings in the 1950s,Watergate in the 70s, Iran
Contra the 80s, Clinton'simpeachment in the 90s, Trump's
trials and the 2010s, ZanDifferent Faces, same stage.
(33:21):
The script never changes.
And every time, the same costs.
Trust erodes.
Cynicism rises.
People look at government andsay, maybe this doesn't matter
at all.
And once that thought sets in,democracy doesn't need enemies
abroad.
It eats itself from within.
But here's where I refuse tospare.
Because while history repeatsitself, people can break cycles.
(33:42):
We don't have to accept theateras the standard.
We don't have to accept thattruth belongs to partisans
instead of the people.
So tonight I want you toremember this the Senate doesn't
belong to Pam Bondi.
It doesn't belong to Trump.
It doesn't belong to Biden.
It doesn't belong to Democratsor Republicans.
It belongs to us.
And when we watch, when wequestion, when we refuse to
settle for the shadow boxing anddemand real answers, that's when
(34:03):
democracy breathes again.
Because truth doesn't need afodder of notes.
It just needs somebody willingto speak it.
So let's be that voice.
Let's not settle for theater.
Let's hold out for the truth.
Empty roll- Oh, but I just changed this! We need
something bigger.
Like Charmin Mega Double XL.
You can go up to one week beforechanging the role.
Charmin Mega Double XL lasts somuch longer.
It's Joy the Go with Sharmin.
Guaranteed to fit.
SPEAKER_15 (00:15):
We are just weeks away from early voting in
Virginia's governor's race, ahistory-making matchup.
I'm News 3's Kurt Williams, andI'm sitting down one-on-one with
the Republican nominee, WinsomeEarl Sears, and the Democratic
nominee, Abigail Spamberger,helping you get to know who just
might be Virginia's first femalegovernor.
Former intelligence officer withthe CIA.
(00:38):
Yep.
Three-term congresswoman for the7th District.
Postal inspector.
All right, let's see.
Former Marine.
No, no, no.
Once a Marine.
Once a Marine.
That is right.
That is right.
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
All right.
Uh first African-American womanelected to statewide office in
Virginia.
Mother of three.
And now the Democratic nomineefor governor.
(01:00):
Former delegate.
Yes.
Grandmother.
And now the GOP gubernatorialnominee.
All right, so before we get intothe political stuff, you you
worked undercover.
That's right.
What was what was that like?
SPEAKER_13 (01:14):
It was exciting.
The whole purpose was to be ableto enter spaces and talk to
people and focus on the issuesthat would enable me to be able
to, you know, collect valuableinformation.
SPEAKER_15 (01:25):
So before we get to more political stuff, I just
have to ask, what was it likebeing a Marine?
SPEAKER_10 (01:30):
So I learned discipline, I learned
leadership.
I was a German electrician and adiesel mechanic.
SPEAKER_15 (01:36):
Do you think it in any way also helps you in some
way in this current campaign?
SPEAKER_13 (01:41):
I mean, I think uh I mean, undeniably, right?
As an intelligence officer,you're a professional ask of
questions.
Uh, so that is certainly helpfulto have a a history of of asking
questions and actually reallylistening.
SPEAKER_15 (01:54):
Does being a once a marine always a marine, does
that help you in any way in thiscurrent campaign?
SPEAKER_10 (02:01):
It does, because I understand that you have to make
sure that you come and see aboutpeople.
SPEAKER_15 (02:07):
Now to the political stuff.
I I always whenever I meet apolitician, especially in
today's climate, why are yourunning?
SPEAKER_13 (02:17):
I think at this moment, it's actually the the
chaos of this moment thatcontinues to motivate me every
day.
As it relates to the issues, I'mI'm not I I'm running to serve
Virginia.
SPEAKER_15 (02:26):
Why do this?
SPEAKER_10 (02:28):
Well, because you Okay, so I came back into
politics, right?
After being gone for 20 years.
And what would have moved melike that?
Well, I have a calling, Ibelieve.
SPEAKER_15 (02:38):
So what do these two candidates believe are the most
pressing issues for Virginians?
I'll have that for you tomorrow.
Kurt Williams, WTKR News 3.
SPEAKER_05 (02:50):
Were you consulted by the White House before they
deployed uh National Guardtroops to cities in the United
States?
SPEAKER_14 (02:59):
I am not going to discuss any internal
conversations with the WhiteHouse.
SPEAKER_01 (03:04):
Do you believe that government officials like Gregor
Bovino are obligated to followapplicable court orders, whether
they agree with them or not?
Yes or no?
SPEAKER_14 (03:14):
I wish that you loved your state of California
as much as you hate PresidentTrump.
SPEAKER_11 (03:20):
The President said we can't delay any longer, Pam,
using your name, and then goeson to tell you to prosecute a
member of this committee, toprosecute the Attorney General
of New York, and to prosecuteJames Comey.
Do you consider that a directiveto the Justice Department?
SPEAKER_14 (03:39):
Senator Clovishark, President Trump is the most
transparent president inAmerican history?
SPEAKER_15 (03:45):
Did you discuss James Comey with the President
of the United States?
He was sitting just to yourleft.
SPEAKER_14 (03:51):
Well, two seats down, yes.
Two seats down.
And I am not going to discussany conversations that I've had
or not have with the Presidentof the United States.
SPEAKER_12 (04:03):
How did you conclude that these strikes on ships or
boats in the open ocean arelegal?
SPEAKER_14 (04:12):
Senator Keynes, I'm not going to discuss any legal
advice that my department may ormay not have given or issued.
SPEAKER_03 (04:19):
Having bond with completely irrelevant far-right
internet talking points reallyis not very helpful here.
SPEAKER_08 (04:28):
It's very clear to me that when the president holds
something like that, that heconsiders the DOJ to be his law
firm and you his lawyer.
SPEAKER_14 (04:45):
I am not going to discuss pending cases because
Comey was indicted in theEastern District of Virginia by,
I may point out, one of the mostliberal grand juries in the
country.
SPEAKER_04 (04:58):
Gary Howard Lutnick on October 1 gave an interview
to the New York Post about Mr.
Epstein.
And he described Mr.
Epstein as, quote, the greatestblack mailer ever, close quote.
SPEAKER_14 (05:11):
Have you reviewed that transcript of that
interview?
I have not reviewed thetranscript, but I saw the clip
of it.
SPEAKER_04 (05:16):
Okay.
It appears that that uhSecretary Lutnick uh was Mr.
Epstein's next door neighbor.
In fact, their their theirtownhomes um shared a wall.
Um and and the uh the reporterthat was asking, talking to Mr.
uh Lutnick, uh she asked how howother prominent men could have
(05:38):
been associated with Epsteinwhen Mr.
Lutnick could immediately sensethat he was a quote pervert.
And then Secretary Lutnick said,or rather the reporter said, Did
they see it and ignore it?
Do you remember that from theinterview?
I did.
And Commerce Secretary Lutnicksaid, no.
They participated.
(05:58):
And then Commerce SecretaryLutnick goes on to say, quote,
that's what his MO was.
You know, get a massage, get amassage.
And what happened in thatmassage room, I assume, was a
video.
This guy was the greatestblackmailer ever, blackmailed
people.
That's how he had money, endquote.
SPEAKER_14 (06:19):
True.
Senator Zar July Memo said wedid not uncover evidence.
This case has gone through threeadministrations, as well as
former U.S.
determinants.
SPEAKER_04 (06:29):
I'm not the pamphlet.
Have you have you interviewedSecretary Lutnick?
SPEAKER_14 (06:33):
No, Senator.
Do you plan to?
If he wants to talk to the FBIor the FBI wants to talk to him,
that is more than on the Don'tyou think you ought to talk to
him after this interview?
Senator, if if Howard Lutnickwants to speak to the FBI and if
Director Patel wants to speak toHoward Lutnick, absolutely.
Okay.
SPEAKER_04 (06:47):
Maybe we'll get Mr.
SPEAKER_06 (06:48):
Lutnick in here too, Mr.
Chair.
Now I said that Attorney GeneralBondy was forced to answer
questions about Howard Lutnickbecause that's the normal
procedure that cabinet membersfind themselves in when
testifying to the Senate.
But we discovered today that themost incompetent attorney
general in history only feelsforced to answer a question if
the senator asking the questionis a Republican.
But when Democrats askquestions, she simply refuses to
(07:11):
answer them.
And that was unimaginable beforeDonald Trump assembled the most
incompetent cabinet in history.
The question about the Trumpcabinet before they were
confirmed was not just how couldthey survive confirmation
hearings, but how could theysurvive any Senate hearing about
anything, including routineoversight of their department?
And the answer has now becomeobvious.
They will simply refuse toanswer questions from Democrats.
Prior to this incompetentcabinet, no one in Washington
(07:34):
knew that that was an option.
If a Democratic Secretary of theTreasury ever refused to answer
a question from a Republicanduring a Senate Finance
Committee hearing when I was thestaff director of that
committee, and Dan PatrickMoynihan was the chairman of
that committee, ChairmanMoynihan would have ordered the
Democratic Secretary of theTreasury or the Democratic
Secretary of Health and HumanServices or any other Democratic
cabinet member appearing beforethat committee to answer that
(07:54):
Republican Senator's questions.
And Chairman Moyhan would havedone that when he was chairman
of the Senate Environment PublicWorks Committee.
That's the way it used to work.
You had to answer the questions.
But the most cowardly Senate inhistory, the current Republican
Senate, has decided to sit idlyand silently by on their side of
(08:15):
the room, while Trump appointeesnot only refuse to answer
Democratic senators' questions,they've decided to publicly
attack the Democratic senatorsfor asking questions.
We've seen the lethally stupidand dangerous Robert Kennedy
Jr., who owes his job entirelyto his father's name, do this
when he testifies to the Senate.
We've seen Donald Trump'scomically inept FBI director
tried to do it.
And today it was Donald Trump'sattorney general's turn.
(08:38):
She's the first attorney generalin history to preside over a
department that has shut downall an investigation into a
high-ranking member of theadministration who was
reportedly caught on an FBIvideo accepting$50,000 in cash
from undercover FBI agents lastyear.
SPEAKER_03 (08:53):
What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI
paid to Mr.
Holman in a paper bag,evidently?
SPEAKER_14 (09:05):
Senator S.
Deputy Attorney General ToddBlanche recently stated the
investigation of Mr.
Holman was subjected to a fullreview by the FBI agents and DOJ
prosecutors.
They found no credible evidenceof any wrongdoing.
SPEAKER_03 (09:17):
And that was not my question.
My question was (09:18):
what became of the$50,000 in cash that the FBI
delivered, evidently in a paperbag, to Mr.
Holman?
SPEAKER_14 (09:26):
Senator, I'd look at your facts.
SPEAKER_03 (09:31):
Are you saying that they did not deliver$50,000 in
cash to Mr.
Holman?
SPEAKER_14 (09:34):
Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr.
Holman was subjected to a fullreview of the by the FBI agents.
By Department of Justiceprosecutors.
They found no evidence ofwrongdoing.
SPEAKER_03 (09:45):
That's a different question.
What became of the$50,000?
Did the FBI get it back?
SPEAKER_14 (09:50):
Mr.
Whitehouse, excuse me.
Senator Whitehouse, you'rewelcome to talk to the FBI.
SPEAKER_03 (09:54):
The report to you, can't you answer this question?
SPEAKER_14 (09:56):
Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to discuss this
with Director Patel.
SPEAKER_03 (10:00):
Did Homan keep the $50,000?
SPEAKER_14 (10:04):
As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch recently
stated, the investigation of Mr.
White House.
SPEAKER_03 (10:10):
I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer
from you to a very simple.
SPEAKER_14 (10:12):
By the FBI agents and the DOJ.
They found no credible evidenceof wrongdoing.
You know, you're very concernedabout money and people taking
money and you know against darkmoney groups.
You work with dark money groupsall the time, Senator
Whitehouse.
SPEAKER_03 (10:25):
Did you know whether or not in that investigation
they looked at whether the 2024$50,000 payment to Mr.
Homan was declared by him on histax returns?
SPEAKER_14 (10:37):
Senator, I would be more concerned if I were you
when you talk about corruptionand money that you that when you
pushed for legislation thatwould subsidize your wife's
company.
SPEAKER_03 (10:50):
So having you respond with completely
irrelevant far-right internettalking points really is not
very helpful here.
I'd like, Mr.
Chairman, you'd generally liketo have us be able to get
answers to know, and we'llfollow up with a QFR.
And to extend Patel wants toanswer, that would be great as
well.
What happened to the$50,000?
Did Homan keep it?
(11:11):
Did the FBI get it back?
If he kept it, did he put it onhis tax returns?
Pretty simple questions.
SPEAKER_06 (11:18):
Did he keep it?
Does he have it?
Is it at home?
Pretty simple questions.
And not one answer.
SPEAKER_08 (11:25):
Last year, President Trump's new border czar, now
Border Tsar, Tom Holman, was uhvideotaped taking a bag with
$50,000 in cash from undercoverFBI agents after suggesting he
could help with governmentcontracts.
Sounds like a bribe.
Two weeks ago, DOJ officialsreportedly shut down the bribery
investigation into Mr.
(11:46):
Holman.
unknown (11:47):
Ms.
SPEAKER_08 (11:47):
Bondi, did you approve closing the uh Holman
investigation?
Bribery investigation?
SPEAKER_14 (11:55):
Senator Perono, as I stated earlier, the Department
of Justice and the FBI conducteda thorough review and they found
no credible evidence of anywrongdoing.
You were also on video outsidethe White House protesting with
a group called CASA where Antifamembers were.
SPEAKER_08 (12:15):
Does that mean you're a member of Antifa?
You know, I simply asked thequestion as to whether or not
you approve the shutting down ofthe investigation of Mr.
Holman.
I have to assume that you didbecause the FBI reports to you,
but the American people wouldlook at the situation where this
person is taking a$50,000 incash, no less, and that you
testified today that a thoroughinvestigation was done.
(12:37):
Now, I have to assume I concludethat since no wrongdoing was
determined, the uh in answer toSenator Whitehouse's question,
he kept the money.
He kept the money, and I hopethat he put that on his uh tax
returns as income.
SPEAKER_02 (12:50):
You know, there's a tape, right, with uh Mr.
Homan.
I mean, first of all, is there atape in that has audio and video
of the transfer of the 50,000?
SPEAKER_14 (12:58):
You would have to talk to Director Patel about
that.
SPEAKER_02 (13:01):
No, I'm I I'm talking to you.
SPEAKER_14 (13:03):
I don't know the answer, Senator.
SPEAKER_02 (13:04):
You do know the answer.
SPEAKER_14 (13:05):
Don't call me a liar.
I didn't call you a liar.
You just said I know the answer.
I said I don't know the answer.
You have to talk to DirectorPatel.
What I said is thatinvestigation was closed.
SPEAKER_02 (13:13):
If you don't know, why don't you know whether there
was a tape and video?
SPEAKER_14 (13:17):
Senator, I believe that was resolved prior to my
confirmation as attorneygeneral.
SPEAKER_02 (13:22):
Do you think that it is of public interest for the
people to know what happened tothe 50 grand that the FBI turned
over to Holman?
SPEAKER_14 (13:28):
Did you hear what I just said?
That was resolved prior to myconfirmation as attorney
general.
That's why I said I wouldn't go.
SPEAKER_02 (13:35):
It's not resolved.
There's$50,000.
Holman has it or somebody hasit.
Do you have no interest inknowing where it is?
SPEAKER_06 (13:42):
You're not going to sit here and slander Tom Holman.
Well, she was right about that.
He was not sitting thereslandering Tom Holman.
And every lawyer in the roomknows there was not one word of
slander against Tom Holman inthat room.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
did not take the$50,000.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
don't still have the$50,000.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
(14:04):
gave the$50,000 back to the FBI.
Donald Trump's so-called BordersArt Tom Holman has never said I
declared the$50,000 on my taxreturn because it was legitimate
income.
And in no version of theexecutive branch of this
government in history prior toDonald Trump, would it be
possible for a member of theadministration to be caught on
an FBI video taking$50,000 incash from undercover FBI agents
and still have a job in thatadministration and never be
(14:27):
required to tell anyone whathappened to the$50,000?
That is a corruption level thatno previous administration has
ever reached.
And the most incompetentattorney general in history
refuses to answer everylegitimate question about that.
The senior Democrat on thecommittee asked the Attorney
General about her most infamouspublic disagreement with
(14:48):
herself.
SPEAKER_05 (14:49):
In February, you made a public claim that the
Epstein client list was, quote,sitting on my desk right now for
review.
End of quote.
You then produced already publicinformation and no client list
in a major media event hosted atthe White House.
Attorney General Bondy, why didyou publicly claim to have the
Epstein client list waiting foryour review and then produce
nothing relevant to that claim?
SPEAKER_14 (15:07):
Senator Dur Senator Durbin, if you listened to my
entire clip on that, I said Ihad not reviewed it yet.
And if you see our memo onEpstein, you will see excuse me,
our memo on Epstein clearlypoints out that there was no
client list.
SPEAKER_06 (15:27):
Okay, let's do what you wants us to do.
Let's listen to exactly what shesaid in that TV interview.
This is something Donald Trumphas talked about.
That DOJ may be releasing thelist of Jeffrey Epstein's
clients.
Will that really happen?
SPEAKER_14 (15:38):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Um that's been a directive byPresident Trump.
SPEAKER_06 (15:43):
She was asked about the list of Jeffrey Epstein's
clients, and she said, it issitting on my desk right now.
She was not asked about theEpstein files.
She was not asked about thethousands of pages of paper and
the legal filings and theEpstein files.
She was asked about what couldbe one piece of paper, one page
of the Epstein files, the listof Jeffrey Epstein's clients,
and she said, it is sitting onmy desk right now.
(16:04):
And then she allowed an unsignedJustice Department statement to
be released saying, there is noEpstein planning list.
It is not a matter of listeningcarefully to what she said on
Fox to find out that there's noinconsistency.
There is a shockinginconsistency.
Listening carefully to what shesaid on Fox proves that she has
contradicted herself.
(16:25):
That is something that very,very few of the confirmed 87
attorneys general of the UnitedStates have ever publicly done.
Most of our attorneys general,from the first in President
Washington's administration,Edmund Jennings Randolph, right
through to the Bidenadministration, never once
publicly contradictedthemselves.
It is something that mostlawyers in a lifetime of
(16:45):
practice never do.
Publicly contradict themselves.
It doesn't happen.
But it is what the mostincompetent attorney general in
history is now most famous for.
Senator Whitehouse had aquestion about something else
that might be in the Epsteinfiles.
SPEAKER_03 (17:00):
Let me ask you something else.
There's been public reportingthat Jeffrey Epstein showed
people photos of President Trumpwith half-naked young women.
Do you know if the FBI foundthose photographs in their
search of Jeffrey Epstein's safeor premises or otherwise?
Have you seen any such thing?
SPEAKER_14 (17:17):
You know, Senator Whitehouse, you sit here and
make salacious remarks, onceagain trying to slander
President Trump left and right,when you're the one who was
taking money from one ofEpstein's closest confidants, I
believe.
(17:39):
Yeah, you're pulling me onPresident Trump and some
photograph with Epstein?
SPEAKER_03 (17:43):
Come on.
The question is Did the FBI findthose photographs that have been
discussed publicly by a witnesswho claimed Jeffrey Epstein
showed them to him?
You don't know anything aboutthat.
Okay.
SPEAKER_06 (17:58):
Um here's what some why don't we cut to something
else?
Why didn't you say no?
Does the FBI have, quote, photosof President Trump with
half-naked young women?
Do you know if the FBI foundthose photographs in their
search of Jeffrey Epstein's safeor premises or otherwise?
(18:20):
Have you seen any such thing?
Why didn't she say no?
When she was asked by aRepublican Senator, did you see
the video of Howard Lutlettalked about Jeffrey Epstein?
She said yes.
She answered all thosequestions.
She knows how to answer yes orno questions.
Why wouldn't Donald Trump'sattorney general want to shut
down the possibility that theEpstein files contain
photographs that were in JeffreyEpstein's possession of Donald
(18:42):
Trump with very young women?
Why didn't she say no?
Committee members asked theirquestions in order of seniority
on the committee.
And so our first guest tonight,who is the newest Democratic
member of the committee, was thelast Democratic senator to deal
with the first attorney generalin history who will only answer
questions from senators who aremembers of her political party.
The junior most member of theJudiciary Committee chose what
(19:05):
turned out to be the bestpossible approach at that point
to an attorney general who livesin fear of answering questions.
SPEAKER_07 (19:13):
I think it's it's valuable that the American
people get a sense of whatyou've refused to answer today.
So these are just some of thequestions you refused to answer,
but or have answered withpersonal attacks on members of
this committee.
You were asked whether youconsulted with career ethics
lawyers, as you promised youwould do, during your nomination
hearing, when you approved thepresident receiving a$400
million gift from the Qataris.
(19:34):
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked what who or whatrole you may play, or who played
the role in asking that Trump'sname be flagged in any of the
Epstein documents gathered bythe FBI?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked whether Holmankept the$50,000 bag money.
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked whether Holmanpaid taxes on the$50,000 brabe
money, you refused to answerthat question.
(19:55):
You were asked, did careerprosecutors find insufficient
evidence to charge James Comey?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked, how are militarystrikes on these boats in the
Caribbean legal?
And you refuse to even ask thatquestion.
You were asked to be asked to bea good question.
Excuse me, excuse me.
Um you were asked, did youdiscuss indicting James Comey
(20:15):
with the president?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked, did you approvethe firing of any trust lawyers
who disagreed with the HewlettPacket merger?
You refused to answer thatquestion.
You were asked whether yousupport a restoration fund for
violent insurrections,insurrections to attack the
Capitol on January 6th, refusedto answer that question.
You were asked whether you werefiring career professionals,
career prosecutors just becausethey worked on January 6th
question, the January 6thinvestigations, you refused to
(20:37):
answer that question.
You were asked by my Californiacolleague whether you believe
government officials, likeimmigration officials, have to
abide by court orders.
You wouldn't even answer thatquestion.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing.
Oversight.
Excuse me.
You can attack me after my.
(20:59):
Canned attacks on you?
This is supposed to be a coupleof things.
No one needs a canned attacks onyou.
I'm trying to speak.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing of the Justice
Department.
And it comes in the wake of anindictment called for by the
president of one of his enemies.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing, and it comes
in the wake of revelations thata top administration official
took$50,000 in a bag, and thisdepartment made that
(21:20):
investigation go away.
An oversight hearing when dozensof prosecutors have been fired
simply because they worked oncases investigating the former
president.
This is another fires inCalifornia.
This is supposed to be anoversight hearing in which
members of Congress can getserious answers to serious
questions about the riots inLATOS about the cover-up of
(21:43):
corruption, about theprosecution of the president's
enemies.
And when will it be?
When will it be your time thatthe members of this committee on
a bipartisan basis demandanswers to those questions and
refuse to accept the question?
SPEAKER_06 (22:05):
In all my years working in the United States
Senate, uh more hearings than Ican count, in two committees
that I was the staff directorof, I never, ever saw a witness
of any kind, cabinet member orarthur, interrupt a Senate.
Never.
That is the lost work of sanitythat preceded Donald Trump's
takeover of the RepublicanParty.
SPEAKER_09 (22:25):
Now I know y'all saw it.
Pam Bondi is strutting into theUnited States Senate as if she
has just been drafted into theSuper Bowl of politics.
And in a way, she did.
Because when you sit down infront of the Judiciary
Committee, you're not justgiving testimony you're
auditioning for history.
You're telling the country whoyou are, what you stand for.
(22:45):
And whether you've got the spineto back it up when the lights
are hot and the knives are out.
Now let me set the scene foryou.
Bondi shows up with a folder ofnotes.
Not unusual.
Everybody does it.
But here's the catch.
The cameras zoom in, andsuddenly America's watching her
talking points before she evenopens her mouth.
That's like stepping into afight gym.
(23:07):
Throwing your playbook on themat and letting your opponent
study it before the bell rings.
Rookie move.
See in politics, just like inwrestling, just like in
jiu-jitsu, confidence is halfthe battle.
If you look like you're runningon memorized lines, the crowd
tunes out.
Because conviction can't befaked forever.
People smell it.
They know when you're workingthe crowd instead of working the
(23:29):
truth.
Now, once she sat down, theDemocrats sharpened their
questions like kitchen knives.
They wanted to know, is theDepartment of Justice being
weaponized?
What about Epstein?
What about history of defendingTrump, her ties to power?
And Bondi did what a seasonedlawyer does, she pivoted, she
jabbed, she counterattacked.
Instead of answering Hadan, shestarted pointing the finger
back.
What about Democrats and theirmoney?
(23:50):
What about hypocrisy on yourside?
That's a classic move.
It's like when you're losing anargument, so you go, yeah, but
what about you?
The problem is that's not ananswer.
That's a dodge.
Now, don't get me wrong, somepeople ate it up.
They saw Bondy as a fighter,somebody not afraid to push
back.
And in this era of politics,let's be honest, the performance
(24:12):
often matters more than thesubstance.
But here's where I gotta stepback.
The Senate ain't Twitter.
It ain't a campaign rally.
It's the chamber where thenation keeps its receipts.
And when you leave more smokethan fire, those receipts will
follow you.
Think about it.
When you walk into theSiddhartham, you're not just
talking to the senators in frontof you.
You're talking to the peoplewatching at home.
(24:33):
You're talking to historians 30years from now.
You're talking to that highschool kid who's watching C-SPAN
because his civics teacher madehim, and now he's forming his
idea of what accountabilitylooks like.
That's the real audience.
And Pam Bondi didn't win them.
Here's the truth.
America's tired of the dodge,tired of the answers.
We don't expect perfection, butwe expect honesty.
(24:54):
And if you can't give that, thenat least don't insult the
intelligence of the public withpre-packaged theater, because
that's what this looked liketheater.
Now let me take this down to theground level, because politics
always feels distant until youconnect it to your own life.
Imagine you're sitting acrossfrom your boss at work and they
ask you about a mistake on yourlast project.
Instead of answering, you startrattling off all the mistakes
(25:15):
your co-workers made.
That might buy you a littletime, but it doesn't fix your
problem.
And eventually your boss isgonna say, yeah, but what about
you?
That's where Bondi foundherself.
And let me tell you in theSenate Chamber, you don't get to
skip that question.
Not for long.
Now, some folks will say,Darrell, you're being too hard
on her.
She was just defending herself,defending her team.
And listen, I get it.
(25:36):
That's her role, that's the job.
But here's where I push back.
Defending your team is fineuntil defending your team starts
to look like dodgingaccountability.
Because the department ofjustice doesn't belong to one
party, it belongs to the people.
And every time we let thesehearings turn into pure
political theater, the peoplelose fate that justice is
possible.
And fate not the Sunday morningkind, but the civic kind is
(25:57):
already running on films in thiscountry.
You strip that away, and youdon't just weaken institutions.
You weaken the nation itself.
So when I watch Bondi in thatchair sparring with senators,
clutching her folder of noteslike a lifeline, I didn't see
strength.
I saw calculation.
I saw someone trying to win thenews cycle, not trying to tell
the truth.
And maybe that's enough in thisera to survive the news cycle to
give your side enough ammo forone more round of talking
(26:18):
points.
But if that's all we expect,then we've already lowered the
bar beneath the floor.
Look, Bondi came in like a lionbut left like a stage actor
reading someone else's script.
And history, history doesn'tremember the actors.
It remembers the truth tellers,the ones who sat in that chair
and said, Here's what I know, W,here's what happened, here's
where I stand, whether peopleliked it or not.
So yeah, Pam Bondi went to theSenate.
(26:39):
She performed.
But when the lights dimmed andthe cameras packed up, America
was still left waiting foranswers, and that silence says
more than her folder of notesever could.
Welcome back to TDMs, or as wenormally say, the Darrell McLean
show, I am always happy whensome of the listerns send me
questions, and I have a greatone from Jean who asks, Why do
(26:59):
Democrats want health care fornon-resident immigrants?
Can't they just walk into anemergency room and be treated
for free?
Isn't it true hospitals can'tturn people away?
Good question.
A sharp one.
And like most sharp questions,it deserves a real answer.
Not just the surface-leveltalking points you hear on cable
news.
Let's start with the facts.
Yes, under federal law,hospitals cannot turn away
(27:22):
someone in an emergency.
That's the Mtala law, signedback in 1986 under President
Reagan.
It says if you show up to the ERand you're in critical
condition, they have tostabilize you.
Doesn't matter if you're acitizen, a visitor, undocumented
rich, poor doesn't matter.
You will get seized.
But here's the catch.
That's not the same thing ashaving health care.
That's the same as saying, ifyour house catches fire, the
(27:44):
fire department has to come putit out.
But they're not going to rebuildyour kitchen, install smoke
detectors, or make sure yourwiring isn't faulty in the first
place.
The emergency room is crisismedicine.
It's triage.
It's let's keep you from dyingright now.
What it is not is ongoing care.
They won't refill your insulinevery month.
They won't monitor your bloodpressure over years.
They won't give you cancerscreenings, mental health
(28:05):
counseling, prenatal visits, ordental care.
That kind of medicine is steady.
Preventative, everyday stuffisn't part of the law.
And no, it's not free.
That's another myth.
The hospital still sends a bill.
If the patient can't pay, guesswhat happens?
The hospital eats it, thenraises costs for everyone else.
Insurance premiums go up.
Taxpayers foot the hidden bill.
(28:25):
So when you hear people say, oh,they just get treated for free,
what they really mean is, we'reall paying for it, but through
the most expensive, independentroute possible.
Now, why does this debate alwaysheat up during a government
shutdown?
Because shutdowns aren't justabout budgets, they're about
theater.
They're about leverage.
Picture two kids in the backseatof a car fighting over who gets
(28:46):
the last French fry.
A shutdown is when they decidenobody gets fries and the whole
car starves until somebodyblinks.
During those fights, bothparties grab the loudest, most
emotional issues they can.
Immigration and healthcare,that's dynamite.
Democrats push health care forimmigrants as both a
humanitarian issue and a publichealth issue.
Their logic goes like this.
First, it's cheaper to treatpeople early than to wait until
(29:07):
they hit the ER in crisis.
A$20 prescription today canprevent a$200,000 surgery
tomorrow.
Second, disease doesn't stop atborders.
Viruses don't check passports.
If people avoid doctors becausethey can't afford it, you get
outbreaks that affect everybody.
Third, they frame it as simplefairness, immigrants buy
groceries, pay sales tax.
Many even pay into SocialSecurity with fake or borrowed
(29:28):
numbers.
Money they'll never see again.
They're contributing to thesystem but excluded from its
protections.
Republicans, meanwhile, frame itas a matter of loyalty and
limits.
Their message.
Hold on, why are we talkingabout health care for people who
aren't even citizens whenAmerican families can't afford
their own coverage?
Why give benefits away tooutsiders when veterans,
seniors, and working class folksare struggling?
(29:49):
That argument packs a punchduring a shutdown when headlines
show furloughed workers, delayedpaychecks, unpaid troops.
It becomes a potent line.
Democrats want to fundimmigrants while citizens go
without.
Now remember, The history here.
Shutdowns have been used asweapons for decades.
In the 90s, it was Clintonversus Gingrich.
In 2013, Republicans shut thegovernment down over Obamacare.
(30:11):
Remember Ted Cruz reading GreenEggs and Ham on the Senate
floor?
In 2018-2019, Trump presidedover the longest shutdown in
American history, 35 days allover border wall funding.
Workers missed paychecks, TSAagents quip, Coast Guard
families lined up at food banks.
Every time the people end up ascollateral damage, while
politicians point fingers.
So today the script is the same.
(30:32):
Democrats say health care is ahuman right even for immigrants,
and we're going to push for it,shut down or no shutdown.
Not a dime.
Not when our own people arehurting.
Not when the border's out ofcontrol.
That's why this question.
Immigrant health care alwayssurfaces during these moments.
It's not random.
It's strategic.
(30:52):
It's a wedge issue that stirsemotion, divides neatly along
party lines, and rallies eachbase.
So let's circle back to theaudience question.
Can immigrants walk into an ERand get treated?
Yes, but only for emergencies.
Is it free?
No.
The rest of us foot the bill.
Why do Democrats want moreaccess?
Because they believe it'ssmarter, cheaper, and more
(31:13):
humane to provide care up frontrather than mop up disasters
later.
Why do Republicans resist?
Because they see it as unfair,unsustainable, and politically
toxic to spend scarce dollars onpeople who aren't citizens.
At the end of the day, thisfight isn't just about
immigrants or even hospitals.
It's about what kind of countrywe want to be one that only
deals with people at the brinkof death, or one that sees
(31:34):
health care as somethingbroader.
Shutdowns just make the fightlouder, because both sides use
it to prove who they're fightingfor.
So yes, the ER will keep itsdoors open.
But that's not healthcare.
That's duct tape on a bulletwound.
The real debate is whether wewant to build a system that
works for everyone or keeppatching holes after the damage
is already done.
You ever notice how Washingtonhearings look more like a bad
(31:56):
Netflix special than actualgovernance?
Half these senators look likethey're auditioning for law and
amp order, DC unit.
You've got the grandstandingspeeches, the raised eyebrows,
the fake outrage perfectly timedfor the evening news, and
somewhere in the middle of allthat, supposedly, is the truth.
But here's the reality.
While the cameras capturetheater, real people live with
(32:17):
the fallout.
Government shutdowns leaveworkers without paychecks.
Veterans wait months for claims.
Parents sit through underfundedschools.
Taxpayers eat the bill fordysfunction.
The Bondi hearing was nodifferent.
Senators scored their stombites.
Bandai played her role.
Everyone left with theirpartisan clip ready for social
media.
And the American people leftwith nothing new.
See, this is what I mean when Isay performance versus
(32:38):
substance.
Performance wins headlines.
Substance changes lives.
But Washington keeps pickingperformance because it's easier.
It's flashier.
And the truth.
The truth requires courage.
So what we're left with is agovernment that behaves like a
stage play.
And the danger of stage plays isthis the actors leave, the
curtains fall, but the audiencestill has to go home hungry.
(32:59):
And America's been hungry forreal governance for a long time.
Let's close with this.
Pam Bondi and the Senate wasn'tnew.
We've seen this movie before.
McCarthy Hearings in the 1950s,Watergate in the 70s, Iran
Contra the 80s, Clinton'simpeachment in the 90s, Trump's
trials and the 2010s, ZanDifferent Faces, same stage.
(33:21):
The script never changes.
And every time, the same costs.
Trust erodes.
Cynicism rises.
People look at government andsay, maybe this doesn't matter
at all.
And once that thought sets in,democracy doesn't need enemies
abroad.
It eats itself from within.
But here's where I refuse tospare.
Because while history repeatsitself, people can break cycles.
(33:42):
We don't have to accept theateras the standard.
We don't have to accept thattruth belongs to partisans
instead of the people.
So tonight I want you toremember this the Senate doesn't
belong to Pam Bondi.
It doesn't belong to Trump.
It doesn't belong to Biden.
It doesn't belong to Democratsor Republicans.
It belongs to us.
And when we watch, when wequestion, when we refuse to
settle for the shadow boxing anddemand real answers, that's when
(34:03):
democracy breathes again.
Because truth doesn't need afodder of notes.
It just needs somebody willingto speak it.
So let's be that voice.
Let's not settle for theater.
Let's hold out for the truth.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com