Pam Bondi makes an absolute fool of herself frantically ducking Epstein questions

OK, as you all know, it has been one hell of a news day and we have an unbelievable group of guests to help us make sense of it with. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was here tonight. My bet is he has some thoughts on Donald Trump's plans to try and steal the next election in his state, which is one of the favorite states that Donald Trump likes to target. And speaking of humiliating defeats, one of the Democratic lawmakers who Trump's Justice Department just tried and failed to indict on baseless charges of seditious conspiracy is going to join me tonight as well. And I just mentioned this to Chris, but Congressman Jamie Raskin, who grilled Attorney General Pam Bondi today in a way that really only he can. I almost think he enjoys these many hour, multi-hour hearings is sitting here. He's going to join me at the table for an exclusive interview about one of the wildest congressional hearings I have ever seen. And, you know, don't just take that from me, because the reviews are in for Bondi's one woman wild, crazy show on Capitol Hill today. And this AP headline, there were a lot, but this AP headline kind of summed it up if you didn't see it. Bondi deflected questions on Epstein files across five-hour hearing. It wasn't really, that's just the headline, because it wasn't just that she deflected. It was how she deflected that made it so embarrassing for her. In fact, at times, Bondi was so obnoxious and so disruptive that she had to be repeatedly, if gently blocked by Jim Jordan from shouting over her questioners. And that is how it was covered. I mean, Jim Jordan is the voice of reason. You kind of know things are going off the rails. Even Pam Bondi's typical cheerleaders tried to literally look away. I mean, according to Mediaite, Fox News declined to carry almost all of the proceedings live or give them the kind of sustained real-time attention that signals an event truly matters. Let's just say if Donald Trump's attorney general was absolutely crushing it there in that hearing today, Fox News would have played the entire thing. They would be doing analysis about how she crushed it. That is not what they're doing. So I've prepped a lot of people for these hearings, as I was just saying to Chris. I have watched hundreds of them. And this one is, well, pretty easy to analyze. Because over the course of those five hours, Attorney General Pambani made an absolute fool of herself, evading questions, childlessly shouting down lawmakers, talking back and even resorting to name-calling, all while attempting some of the most ridiculous and poorly executed diversions I have ever seen. But why just read you the reviews? I just wanted to start there when I can take you to the actual show. Here is Pam Bondi being asked a very simple question about why the Justice Department has not brought new charges against anyone in the Epstein files. So I really have just one question for you. How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating? Investigating. This administration released over 3 million pages of documents, over 3 million. And Donald Trump signed that law to release all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in the nation's history. And none of them, none of them ask Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now is over, the Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. I mean, I don't know why more people weren't laughing in exasperation at the absurdity of her answer. I mean, Pam Bondi was asked why she hadn't investigated any of Epstein's co-conspirators. And she basically said, because the Dow is over 50,000. I mean, I guess her argument is, do we really want our Justice Department investigating an elite cabal of pedophiles at a time when their stock portfolios are doing so well? Guess this is the Attorney General of the United States, though. I mean, she's a person that is supposed to make big, important, sober, prosecutorial decisions. a person that is supposed to be independent of the president who she worshipped through the course of a five-hour hearing publicly out loud. And she's supposed to be independent of politics in general. But for most of this hearing, it felt like Pam Bondi was not really acting as the attorney general and more like she was auditioning for the role of a Trump campaign spokesperson. I mean, here she was responding to a comment about her office's handling of the killings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Preddy. The DOJ is not collaborating with state and local law enforcement on these homicides. So I really think that is a disgraceful approach to the homicides of American citizens. And it really does nothing to bring credit to your department. And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. General A yields back. May I answer? Attorney General can respond. I find it interesting that she keeps going after President Trump, the greatest president in American history. DOJ isn't collaborating with local law enforcement to investigate the death of American citizens. That was in the question. It's an important thing to ask. And Pam Bondi's response is, Donald Trump is the greatest president in American history. And did I mention the Dow, which remains perhaps one of the most absurd moments of the hearing? It's like she was kind of a social media bot of sorts replying with random non sequiturs and AI generated images of Donald Trump with a six pack or the verbal version of that. Can you imagine Merrick Garland answering a question like that? Hell, I mean, can you imagine Bill Barr answering a question like that? And the thing is, it kept going like that over and over and over. Every time she was asked a serious question about something within her job description, she evaded, either by attacking the questioner or by really over the top glorifying her boss. Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to know, were there any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein? This is so ridiculous, and that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done. Okay. To state the obvious, but we've got to restate it sometimes, the question of whether or not the current sitting president of the United States attended any parties with a sexual predator where underage girls were present is not ridiculous at all. I think everybody wants to know the answer to that question. Also, by the way, it wasn't exactly a seven-parter. She could have just said no if she knew the answer was no. And it wasn't just her refusal to provide a basic answer. That was certainly part of it. When given the opportunity to honor the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, who were literally right behind her in that hearing room, she refused. To the survivors in the room, If you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice. Please know for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand. Will you turn to the survivors? This is not about anybody that came before you. It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice is doing. Members get to ask the questions. The witness gets to answer in the way they want to answer. The Attorney General can respond. That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman. Because she doesn't like the answer. So, Mr. Chairman, I have asked a question. Why didn't she ask Merrick Garland this? Twice. I am reclaiming my time, and when I reclaim my time, it is mine. I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics. The time belongs to the gentlelady. The gentlelady has 17 seconds. Thank you. You're not going to answer this question, so let me just say this. Chairman, I'll direct it to you. What a massive cover-up. No, I'm answering a question. Chairman, will you restore her time? The witness is interrupted. I'm not going to get in the gutter with this woman. Stop the time. She's doing theatrics. Let me. I mean, there was a lot telling about that exchange, including the fact that Pam Bondi, if you know this, refused to even look at Epstein's survivors. And that that says a lot. It's not the only shocking thing, though, to come out of that exchange. As Bondi was going back and forth with Congressman Jayapal, a photographer in the room snapped this photo of the binder in front of Pam Bondi. And if you zoom in, and we're going to do that for you, and rotate that image to take a closer look, you can clearly see that the page is labeled Jayapal Pramila Search History. And it appears to list all of the Epstein files that Congresswoman Jayapal privately viewed on the Justice Department's computers, where lawmakers can view the unredacted versions of the files. Now, after that image became public, Congresswoman Jayapal told MSNOW's tireless, intrepid reporter Ali Vitale, quote, it's totally inappropriate. Is this the whole reason they opened the files up to us two days early so they could essentially surveil members to see what we were going to ask her about? Good question. I mean, that was essentially an oppo document in the binder of the attorney general saying what people, what person who was going to be questioning her had searched just a few days ago. And I hope others start asking it I mean throughout the entire hearing Bondi made it clear that her goal was to basically not answer questions of course but fight with every Democratic member of the committee no matter what their questions were. At one point, Congressman Becca Ballant got up and walked out of the hearing over Bondi's attacks. Do the right thing, Attorney General. Meet with the survivors. They have been asking for a year. Meet with the survivors. Do the right thing. I yield back. I was curious if you, Congresswoman, asked Bill Clinton that. Didn't see one tweet, not one. I didn't see one tweet when Joe Biden was in office about Bill Clinton. Didn't ask Merrick Garland anything about Epstein, not once. When he was— Weak sauce. And also, I want the record to reflect that, you know, with this anti-Semitic culture right now, She voted against a resolution condemning. Oh, I want to be clear. Do you want to go there, attorney general? Do you want to go there? Are you serious? I'm talking about anti-Semitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust. You heard that correctly. Yes, Congresswoman Becca Bellen's grandfather died in the Holocaust. and Pam Bondi just accused her of being anti-Semitic instead of agreeing to meet with Epstein survivors. That's what just happened there. And again, these weren't just isolated incidents. And what I would consider perhaps the clearest sign that she was either completely out of her depth or unprepared with no good answers or a combination, her go-to move during the hearing was to repeatedly behave like some sort of over-caffeinated high school mean girl. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to get, you're a failed politician. Not a complicated question. Oh, well, I guess it is for you because you have a law degree and those are privileged. Do you even know who Chase Mulligan is? You're so obsessed with, you don't, do you? I'm going to teach you the rules again. Have you apologized to President Trump? Have you apologized to President Trump, all of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald Trump? nothing about helping crime in her district. She's not even worth getting into the details. Excuse me. I'm going to answer the question. Answer my question. No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started. You don't tell me anything. I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate. You're not even a lawyer. You don't give a reclaim time when you don't. This is bigger than Watergate. When I don't answer a question the way you want. Only two people voted against it and you were one of them, hypocrite. But we're going to move back to you. I bet we are. Yes, of course, because you're here to testify. The whole thing is given a grown-up version of Regina George from Mean Girls. You know who I'm talking about. Now, for Pam Bondi, this entire hearing was about putting on a show, obviously, so her boss could see her yelling at lawmakers he doesn't like. That's the whole thing. But Donald Trump was not the only one watching this hearing. I mean, whether it's the Epstein files or the killing of American citizens in Minneapolis, the entire country has taken an interest in what this Department of Justice is doing. We know this. They're paying attention. And if they tuned into this hearing, they saw an administration making a mockery of their priorities. They saw a Department of Justice that only cares about one person, one man sitting in the White House. Well, at the same time, they saw responsible lawmakers ask tough questions and center the people who really matter in all of this. You're not showing a lot of interest in the victims, Madam Attorney General. Whether it's Epstein's human trafficking ring or the homicidal governmental violence against citizens in Minneapolis, as Attorney General, you're siding with the perpetrators and you're ignoring the victims. That will be your legacy unless you act quickly to change course. I think you really captured the energy a lot of people are feeling and joining me now as a person, of course, you just saw there, Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. I almost think you enjoy these five-hour hearings, and I have so many questions for you. But I want to start with something I just mentioned, and it really stuck out to me, which is that Bondi had this binder today that appeared to documents showing Congresswoman Jayapal's search history for what she looked at when she looked at the unredacted Epstein files. It seemed we saw that one. That was the one that was captured. Do you have reason to believe that she has documents like that on others? I assume she's got it on each one of us. So I went over there. I think I was the first member to arrive because I'm local and I got there. And then I was shepherded into a room. There are four computers. And so I was the only member there. But then two other people came and sat down at computers near me, which was odd because we were on a floor with maybe 100 empty offices. So I couldn't quite figure out what they were doing there. But then I figured they're probably just monitoring me. They're watching what I'm doing. Like what you're taking notes of or? Well, yeah, but I imagine they were following me online. Like they didn't give us a personal ID or password. They logged me in. I logged out by accident two different times, I think, and I had to get them to come back and log me in. They would not let me see what my password was or what my ID was. And so then what we saw with that photograph somebody snapped of the attorney general's burn book, where she was ready with handy insults against each member, was Pramila Jaiwil's search history, all of the searches she did when she went over there. So she was seated at one of those four computers doing searches on different things. Now, understand, it's like a needle in the haystack. There are 3 million documents out there. They're withholding 3 million documents for reasons that are unclear. They say they're duplicative. If they're duplicative, just release them. But we think there's different layers of redaction and subterfuge going on here. They're hiding a lot of stuff and they're trying to make it as difficult as possible. But on top of all of that, they're compounding the difficulty of the process by essentially monitoring those of us who are trying to exercise our limited rights that we're trying to vindicate the people's interest in the federal law we passed to just release all the documents so everybody could see them. The only thing that should be redacted is the names of the victims. And that's what they didn't redact. More than 100 victims had personal identifying information published by Pam Bondi and her team. That is names, phone numbers, addresses, some nude images of some of them were. And then nothing else was supposed to be redacted. But then they redacted all this stuff with co-conspirators, collaborators, enablers, you name it. And it's going to take us a long time to sort through all of this. And they want to spy on us during the process. I want to ask you about the redactions. I just want to ask because Ali Vitale, my colleague, talked to Pramila Jaya, Paul, of her office, and she basically said she thought they may have released the files early. I just read this quote because or they may have allowed you to go see the files early because it would help her prepare for the hearing. Attorney General Bondi, that is. What do you think? Well, then they could see which files we were accessing. One of the ones I found, for example, was Epstein sending to Ghislaine Maxwell email he got from his lawyers saying, well, there wasn't a deposition of Donald Trump. This is in, I think it was 2019. There wasn't a deposition, but there was a phone interview in which the report comes through to Epstein that Trump said, no, Epstein was not a member of Mar-a-Lago, but he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago, but we never sent him away. Well, that totally contradicts what Trump has been saying about how precisely he expelled him and sent him away when he learned around. So that makes sense to me that somebody wanted to redact that for some reason. That happened to be the first document that I went to, although maybe somebody at the Department of Justice can correct me if it was the second one I went to or the third one. But in any event, we've only seen a tiny fraction of what's out there. And we've got to use this scandal of them surveilling us in the process to sit down with them and come up with another process with not just four computers so any member can access it, so our staffs can access it. And so we can really try to get through this huge volume of information. At the same time, we try to figure out why she's withholding three million documents entirely and more than 200,000 pages of what they did release have been completely redacted. Like Tom Massey was saying today, just totally blacked out. It makes no sense. It just it's to me irreversible to conclude that we're in the middle of a cover up, that they are trying to cover everything up and it's all deflection and camouflage. And that's what we saw today in that shameful, disgraceful performance by Attorney General Bondi. We just played a lot of what happened during that hearing, but it was it was five hours long. So we didn't cover everything. And you reference—and Thomas Massey asked a question about this, about who was responsible for releasing so many victims' identities. And you've talked about this and really been sounding the alarm about this. She accused Trump of—accused, I'm sorry, Massey of Trump derangement syndrome, which is very telling. We accuse them of deranged Trump syndrome following a deranged person in Syria. That seems accurate, too. But it seems like—I mean, they could have—what is your theory on why they did this? I mean, was it incompetence or was it trying to scare the victims or intimidate the victims? Because that's possible, too. Or some mixture thereof. I mean, either it was spectacular world historical incompetence. And remember, they've been going through these documents even since January. When Bondi first ordered the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office to turn everything over. And they said there's nothing left to see here. But then they went through them in March. They went through them in July and they redacted them for Donald Trump. So they've been through them many times. Right. So it's either spectacular incompetence and negligence or as a number of the survivors told us today in conversations, it was a deliberate effort to intimidate people and to keep other survivors from coming forward because it basically saying to them if you risk coming forward you could have your name your phone number your address old photographs, all of it dragged out in the open and published by the Department of Justice, totally at odds with what Congress has legislated in the federal law that we passed about it. One, I mean, and they have a history of intimidating survivors. So it seems very consistent with that. One of the questions she refused to answer today, and I just talked about this, is whether or not Trump had attended any parties with Jeffrey Epstein where there were underage girls there. We have to sneak in a very quick break, but I want to ask you about that when we come back. We are back with Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee who grilled Attorney General Pam Bondi today on Capitol Hill. Okay, before the break, I asked you about this moment where Pam Bondi was basically asked, I said it wasn't a seven-part question. It was basically, can you tell us whether or not Donald Trump, the president of the United States, attended parties with Jeffrey Epstein where there were underage girls there? She kind of spit back Trump derangement syndrome, whatever she did. Why do you think she didn't answer that question? Well, like Todd Blanch and Kash Patel and everybody else, they're all Donald Trump's criminal defense team. So she wasn't answering it like a prosecutor who's actually interested in finding crimes. She was answering it from the perspective of, how's Donald Trump, my client, going to relate to my answer here? I mean, she was asked about other potential crimes today, like Don Lemon. The Republicans were all over that. She knew the dates. She knew the names. She knew everybody involved. She was animated. She was focused. She was really interested in that potential crime. She had a lot more to say about that than she did about potentially hundreds or thousands of crimes committed in the Epstein conspiracy. She doesn't want to talk about that. That's part of her job to cover that up. And it's, I think, becoming increasingly clear to America that's what she's there for, to cover up the entire Epstein conspiracy. It's not like a coincidence that she's from Florida, that she was there with Alex Acosta. These people, Alex Acosta later becomes Labor Secretary. These people have traveled through politics with Donald Trump. And now her job is to try to cover up everything that's going on with Epstein files. You spent two hours, I believe, there looking at the unredacted files the other day. I was there for four or five hours. Sorry, four or five hours. I assume you want to go back. You're trying to work out being able to see them. What are you looking for? Do you know what you're looking for the next time you go back? Well, I'll know more what I'm looking for when I go back. But, you know, we're getting more and more clues as people study what's redacted. And we try to figure out, well, what is in that redacted place? What are the names that are missing? It's very clear that names of a lot of accomplices, co-conspirators, enablers have been redacted. And we want to make those names clear. And some of them have come out. And I know, you know, my colleagues, Ro Khanna and Tom Massey, have been very focused on getting those names out. And so a lot more of those are going to come out. But, for example, there was a list of Epstein victims where none of the names were redacted except for one. It shows there was some malice of forethought there, but they let all of them go forth. But then there are all these people who are clearly victimizers who've had their names scrubbed and removed because somebody doesn't want it to be known. So I think we're in the middle of just figuring out this massive conspiracy. But we're going to have to go back to the very original, I think, sweetheart deal that was made. There was a 60 count federal indictment readied by the Department of Justice against Epstein. And that got traded for a one state count of solicitation to prostitution. So we want to know exactly why did Alex Acosta do that? Why did the other Department of Justice lawyers involved do that? What was the role of the team of lawyers that Epstein had, including Alan Dershowitz and that whole thing? We have to go back to there in order to see the unfolding of this more than decade long conspiracy. Hope you come back when you learn more. Congressman Raskin, thank you for being here. You bet. OK, coming up, Donald Trump's plot to steal the next election, something we've been talking about a lot, might be headed to Pennsylvania. We certainly can't rule that out. And yes, Pam Bondi makes a cameo in this story. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is standing by and he joins me next. When the FBI raided the Fulton County election offices last month, we pretty much knew it wasn't a one-off in all likelihood. I mean, Trump has been obsessed with the 2020 election since it happened, and he has made pretty clear that he has every intention of messing with the 2026 election. And the more we learn about what he is up to, the more clear it becomes that he has much bigger plans beyond Georgia. I mean, the prosecutor who led the search isn't even based in Georgia. He's based in Missouri. And Pam Bondi has basically given this guy a nationwide remit when it comes to election fraud. Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, seized voting machines in Puerto Rico. So now the question isn't, will they stop at Georgia and Puerto Rico? So now the question is, where should we be clear-eyed about them possibly going next? Well, I can't say that for sure. I have a pretty good guess as to one state that is definitely on the short list. We are still on the ground in Pennsylvania. I'm here right now, and we are not going anywhere until they declare that we won Pennsylvania. And that was Trump's now attorney, General Pambani, who we've spent most of the show talking about. And that was her two days after the 2020 election, back when she was just a Trump lawyer. The day after the 2020 election, this tells you something. She drove from D.C. straight to Pennsylvania to claim that the mail-in vote, which was tilting the state towards Biden, was riddled with fraud. Pam, did you just say fake ballots? There could be. That's the problem. If they're letting you know, Steve, do you have have you heard stories of, you know, ballots that are fake? And if so, just tell us what you know. Well, we know that ballots have been dumped. There were ballots that were found early on. We've heard that people were receiving ballots that that were dead. You know, the thing that's happening all over the legal ballots. Well, no, not if people were receiving ballots where they were deceased. That's the problem. Everybody proved her loyalty to Trump by pushing the big lie in Pennsylvania. And that's not the only reason we should all keep an eye on the state. I mean, yesterday we got the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for Fulton County. And it turns out the whole search was prompted by a referral filed with the FBI by a man named Kurt Olson, a man who just so happens to have been one of the primary advocates for Trump's 2020 lawsuit to try to overturn the results of the election in Pennsylvania. But on top of all of that, the reason I'm so concerned, or we should all be clear-eyed about Pennsylvania, is because of what Trump is saying himself. Take a look at Pennsylvania. Take a look at Philadelphia. You go take a look at Atlanta. Look at some of the places that are horrible corruption on elections. And the federal government should not allow that. The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over. Joining me now is Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro. He's also the author of Where We Keep the Light, Stories from a Life of Service. Governor Shapiro, it's great to see you. Thank you for being here tonight. I just want to start with a question about Trump. I mean, he's made pretty clear he's been obsessed with the 2020 elections. He's made clear he wants to nationalize the elections. You have been to this rodeo many times before, and you're pretty a straight talker. How worried are you that you could see something like what we saw in Fulton County last month in Pennsylvania? And how are you preparing for that? Well, look, I'm concerned because past is prologue. We know what Donald Trump is going to do, which is to lie about the will of the people in Pennsylvania. And he and his allies will do everything in their power to try and thwart the will of the people. I know this because, of course, Back in 2020, I was the attorney general of our Commonwealth in the election that Donald Trump lost here in our Commonwealth. And you'll remember that after Election Day, Trump and his enablers sued us 43 different times to try and overturn votes here. Legal eligible voters would have had their votes knocked out. The good news is I went 43 and 0 and Trump went 0 and 43. And we once again had a free and fair, safe and secure election. Jen, an election where Trump lost and some other Republicans won and other Democrats won because we respected the will of the people. Fast forward now to where we find ourselves, you know, less than a year from the midterms. We're already seeing the same corrupt games being played by Donald Trump and his enablers. A few months ago, they demanded that I turn over all of the voter lists and the private personal information of the more than nine million Pennsylvania voters. We said no. And then they sued us to try and compel us to turn over people's private personal information, which I believe they will not use for anything good, only for nefarious purposes. So we are now defending our people here in Pennsylvania from the Trump administration trying to steal their information. So, look, I am worried because we know what these folks are capable of trying to do. But the good people of Pennsylvania should know that I'm on it. I will stand up for them. And once again we will have a free and fair safe and secure election here in Pennsylvania no matter what Donald Trump tries You spent as you just noted as Attorney General 43 cases That is a lot of cases What do you, as you look at what he's been saying out loud, what he did in Georgia, in Puerto Rico, what do you think the larger plan is here for people out there who are freaked out and worried but really want to understand where this is headed? Yeah. Look, I think the first part of their plan is just to gain access to the information and the data. And by the way, data that I am required by law here in Pennsylvania to protect from the kind of demands that we're seeing from the federal government. So I think the first thing is to try and get access to that information, to be able to use it to spin up all kinds of tales, and to use that then as the justification for interfering with the election, whether that interference contemplates sending in the guard, whether that interference means trying to send in federal personnel to monitor or to interfere with our elections. Look, Jen, I don't know. And to be honest with you, I don't know that he knows. He loves to cast about and flail around and see what sticks. And I think you're seeing more of the same from him. He's got a group of people around him who are willing to go to court and lie for him. You'll remember that among those 43 cases that I won back in 2020, it was his top lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who came into courts here in Pennsylvania and lied to a judge. And then ultimately, I pursued his law license along with others, and he no longer has a law license because he lied here in a court of law in our Commonwealth. I think we're going to see more of the same, but I can tell you that we are going to be prepared. I've got the finest secretary of state in the entire country, Al Schmidt, who, by the way, Jen, is a Republican and I'm a Democrat because we believe that the administration of elections should be nonpartisan. Obviously, your choices are partisan, but the administration needs to be above reproach and it needs to be something people have confidence in and where the will of the people will be respected. And Donald Trump doesn't respect the people of Pennsylvania. That's why he's going to work so hard to overturn our elections again. Rudy Giuliani is a good example of an old school OG enabler Pam Bondi is one who was old school and is still trying to do it today. And last week, I mean, in your state, I know you're probably tracking this. Trump endorsed a Republican to run against you for governor of Pennsylvania, the current state treasurer, Stacey Garrity. And the next day, Garrity told reporters that she would, quote, work with the Trump administration to, quote, turn our state around when it comes to elections. What do you make of that comment? How should people hear and understand what that means? Yeah, I mean, I think it shows there's a clear choice in this election. If you want someone who's going to turn over your private personal information to Donald Trump, if you want someone who's going to work with him to nationalize the elections, then I guess my opponent is your cup of tea. But if you want someone who's going to stand up for the rule of law, stand up for the sanctity of our elections, defend the will of the people and ensure that their voices are the ones heard, then I'm going to continue to do this job for the good people of Pennsylvania, continue to fight for them. I think we have seen in our politics what happens to sycophants who just simply do whatever Donald Trump wants. They tend not to fare pretty well and they tend not to win many elections. They certainly haven't won them here in our Commonwealth. Maybe she's not tracking that's against the Constitution to federalize elections. Who knows? Governor Josh Shapiro, thank you as always for being here and and sharing what people should try to be clear eyed about. in this moment. Thanks again. Thanks, Jen. Okay. My next guest is one of the Democratic lawmakers who the Trump Justice Department just tried and failed to indict on charges of seditious conspiracy. And my guess is Congressman Chris Deluzio has some things to get off his chest tonight. He joins me here at the table when we come back. The largest and one of the most important United States attorney's offices is here in Washington, D.C. And the person now leading that office is, well, this person. Welcome back to Justice. Just the other day, the president talked or was hoping about the possibility of reopening everything on Easter Sunday. DEI is just a rebranded version of hating white people. They've got COVID. They've got all kinds of diseases. They are being released into the United States. We'll be eating zoo animals before it's all over. Really? Women will be giving birth in the streets. The establishment of Republicans have buckled, caved and bowed to the Democrats. Or should I say demon rats? That's what I said. Demon rat. Now, you may not be shocked to learn that Janine Pirro is struggling a bit since becoming the U.S. attorney for D.C. I mean, back in August, her office failed to convince a grand jury to indict the guy who threw a subway sandwich at federal officers for a federal felony charge. They even failed to get a jury to convict him on the single misdemeanor charge they did manage to bring. Pirro's office also failed three times to convince a grand jury to indict in another case of alleged assault against a federal agent. But we just saw Janine Pirro's biggest failure yet, perhaps because it's so absurd, because a D.C. grand jury just refused to indict six Democratic lawmakers simply because they posted a short video last year reminding service members to reject illegal orders. That's all the things she's working on right now, just doing a bang up job. Joining me now is one of those six lawmakers, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Chris Zaluzio. It's great to see you. What a 24 hours you have spent a day. Piru has in the past tried multiple times to go back to grand juries. Is that something? I mean, it was a very big development last night. I think we all kind of cheered and you were probably more relieved than the rest of us. But is that something that you are preparing yourself for the possibility? You know, I have no idea what these people are going to do, but they have been crystal clear in their willingness to flout the law, to abuse the powers they have in the Justice Department that belongs to all of us in this country of ours. It's not just Donald Trump's personal vendetta machine, as he's using it against political rivals and opponents like me and others to try to scare us and intimidate us. So I have no prediction what these folks will do. But again, they've shown both incompetence and a disregard for the rule of law. And that is a dangerous combination. One of the things that has struck me, and I have not talked to you about this particular piece, is that the things you all said in this anodyne video that is factually true and is basically the law in the military are similar to things that Pete Hexeth has said. They are almost exactly what Pete Hexth has said. In fact, he went even further and talked about orders from the commander in chief in his video talking about the duty to disobey clearly unlawful orders. That's what he said. Pam Bondi even put it in a legal briefing before she was the attorney general. And remember, this is basic stuff. You learn it as I did at the Naval Academy. You learn it if you went to boot camp or officer candidate school or anything else. You train on this to make sure you know your obligations, to follow lawful orders, to make sure you know your obligations. you're making sure that those under your command follow the law. It's basic stuff. And the fact that the president and those around him, their response to Mark Kelly and me and Alyssa Slotkin and others saying the law is to try to put us in prison should scare folks, but not be intimidated for a second because we're not giving an inch to these people. That's not a surprise coming from you and good to hear. Also, if people violate the law in the military, they could be court-martialed or they could be dishonorably discharged or put in jail. There are huge consequences. Part of why you did that video. One of your colleagues, Congressman Jason Crow, who was also in the aforementioned video, which is excellent, he basically has said through his lawyer that Pirro should preserve any of her documents related to the failed indictment of him and, of course, all of your congressional colleagues. Do you, are you also considering, are you considering taking further legal action from your end? So, I will keep my cards close, But I agree with Mr. Crow. That message has been delivered both through counsel and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Durbin there has delivered that message. Through your counsel, too? Stay tuned. But I will say clearly they should be preserving their documents, their communications, all of this about this unlawful use of criminal justice against us. And they're weaponizing the Justice Department. And even today, I mean, I've lost track of how many Republican senators have said how wrong and foolish this is to do. So the bipartisan outrage, which is rare these days, as you know, is pretty clear here. One of the people, I'm going to stop being disappointed in him because he disappoints me every day, but Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about the failed indictment earlier today, and he said it was a very dangerous gambit they were playing. Should they be sent to jail? Probably not. I can't imagine you're surprised, but what did you make of his response to the failed indictment? Yeah, look, that's a walk back from last night where there was a clip of him suggesting that charging people like me with a crime was fine. Good. You know, there's never a bad time to do the right thing. And I'll say that clearly to my Republican counterparts. You know what? You can always change your mind and do what is right. And I think more than speaking up, not just for me and for others, for our Constitution and the American people. Because remember, when they're coming after me and anyone else, yeah, maybe it's about us, But it's about telling those who want to dissent, the American people, that they should be scared. And absolutely not. That's a walk back. That's our bar these days. But fair point, Congressman Deluzio. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Jen. Really appreciate it. We've got to sneak in a quick break. But Lawrence has Senator Mark Kelly standing by. That will be one to listen to. We'll be right back. That does it for me tonight. you can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern on MS Now. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue Sky, Instagram and TikTok.