UPDATE on Pam Bondi DEFYING subpoena

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]I'm joined now by Congressman Jared Moscowitz. Congressman, thanks for joining me.

[00:00:03]>> Hey Brian, how's it going?

[00:00:04]>> So, we have uh an update here as it relates to Pam Bondi's scheduled deposition that was supposed to take place.

[00:00:10]>> Oh, tell me what Oh, tell me what's the update.

[00:00:12]>> Supposed to have taken place April 14th.

[00:00:14]Obviously, that date came and went like a fart in a hurricane. She didn't show up. So, is uh is Congress going to relinquish its uh desire to have her come and testify now that she's no longer AG? Well, first let me say, you know, this was the scenario that many Democrats, myself included, were concerned about, which is, you know, the Republicans threatening to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn't show up. Would they hold that state standard uh if it were Pam Bondi or or Republican uh that uh was subpoenaed? And now we're finding out, it's unclear uh if the same people that subpoena Pam Bondi are are willing to hold her in contempt. To be clear, she has to show up. The subpoena has nothing to do with her being attorney general. It's her. She has to go. And so, you know, she didn't show up at the current date. They're renegotiating maybe for a second date.

[00:01:00]But if she does not show, if she's unwilling to come, then she needs to be held in contempt. The committee needs to hold her in contempt, and then Congress will need to hold her in contempt.

[00:01:09]That's how this needs to work. Or, you know what? Congressional subpoenas uh no longer matter. Also, this will get resolved because Robert Garcia most likely will be chair of that committee in January. So really, if she's not held in contempt for the ne in the next five or six months, she'll be held in contempt immediately in January for for for not showing up. Uh that being said, the flip side of that is I mean, look, can you blame her? I mean, who wants to spend four hours with James Comr, right?

[00:01:35]I mean, I I don't blame her for not wanting to go and be in a basement with James for 4 hours. So, you know, on that respect, I side side with the former attorney general. Well, look, I I think um I think that that was a an an astute point about the fact that they had such harsh words for the Clintons, the prospect of Hillary Clinton not coming in even though she had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. And yet and and James Comr and these other Republicans were perfectly content to threaten contempt. And yet now you have the attorney general who has a lawfully issued subpoena was supposed to be there on on April 14th. that date came and went and uh and now we haven't heard, you know, we haven't heard James Comr utter a single word about P.

[00:02:16]>> And Brian, we got real questions for the former attorney general. I mean, first of all, why did you give out the binders uh to the influencers uh to the beginning of this? Then why did you say the list was on your desk? Then why was there why did you say there was no list?

[00:02:31]Why did the administration say tell all the Republicans this was a Democratic hoax and MAGA for falling for the Democratic hoax? Were you instructed to to make to not release any of the files by the president uh or uh the White House? Why did the White House say that this was a hostile act for anyone who wanted to sign up any Republican who wanted to sign up for the discharge petition when uh we brought uh when Republicans started signing that discharge petition? Why did you bring some of those Republicans into the situation room? You know, the place where we where the president goes when we're at a time of war. Why did you tell Republicans if they got their name off the discharge petition, you would put stuff in the budget for them? Or you might primary them if they don't take their name off the discharge petition.

[00:03:13]Pam Bondi was supposedly in the situation room. Why did Cash Patel under Pam Bondi under oath say that Jeffrey Epstein only trafficked girls to himself when we know obviously uh there were co-conspirators who names were redacted?

[00:03:27]Why were those names redacted? Why were victims names uh released? Why did Cash Patel say Trump's name is only in there less than a hundred times when it was in there obviously more times than Harry Potter's name was in the books about Harry Potter? These are legitimate questions that she should answer under oath in in a deposition. And so this is going to happen one way or another. Uh hopefully the Republicans uh hold themselves to the same standards uh that they were holding themselves to a couple months ago when it came to a former president and a former secretary of state, people who were out of office obviously. Do you think it was a coincidence that Pam Bondi was was unceremoniously fired from her job just two weeks before she was supposed to appear for this sworn deposition?

[00:04:09]Look, I don't know the answer to that.

[00:04:10]My guess it's a totality of things. Same thing what happened with Christine Gnome. I think it was a totality of things, but I don't think the committee hearings for either Christine Gnome, uh, who, you know, couldn't say on the record whether she was, you know, having an affair with Cory Lwendowski and, you know, obviously blamed the president for her ad in which she gave a no bid contract to her friends to a company that was 11 days old, uh, and, you know, spent, you know, $30,000 on horses. You know, the same thing with Pam Bondi, right? I mean, obviously the Epstein debacle that she was in charge of. Um, you know, and then that congressional hearing was, I mean, maybe one of the worst of the last two years. And so, you know, there were other things, my guess, uh, that were involved, but I I I don't think the president fired her to get her out of the depo. I my guess is is that there was a lot of stuff that we saw, some stuff that we didn't. So, there is a a moment where Donald Trump was asked today if he believes that there should be a public hearing for uh for the Epstein survivors and his response was, "I'm okay with that, but I understand the women didn't want to go under oath.

[00:05:11]That's what I heard that the victims or whatever. They refuse to go under oath."

[00:05:15]Your reaction to that quote?

[00:05:17]>> Well, that's not true. I mean, they're showing up to the hearings, right?

[00:05:20]They're very a lot of them are being very public of who they are. Uh, and by the way, they don't have to come, right?

[00:05:26]If we have an open invitation and a hearing and some survivors want to come and some survivors don't, it's their option, but we should provide them that opportunity. It's not mandating. We're not going to subpoena the witnesses, right? We'd invite them, and if they want to come, they they can come and speak. And so, if he supports them uh of us having a hearing to give them a time to talk to the American people, that's fantastic. It only took him 18 months to get there. Um, you know, uh, but look, I I hope that happens. I I I think that uh they deserve that the least uh Congress could could offer them.

[00:05:58]>> Last question on Pam Bondi. Um, you know, there is a world where even if and when Robert Garcia takes the chairmanship of the oversight committee and Pam Bondi is again subpoenaed to appear before the committee that even if she defies her congressional subpoena, she would just kind of leave it in the hands of Todd Blanch, whoever the attorney general is, and Donald Trump to actually prosecute her to to to move that forward. It's not like Congress.

[00:06:26]>> Yeah, but she can lose her but but she can lose her bar license. Okay. You know, so you know, yes, you know, I if if the committee would then hold her in contempt and then Congress would hold her in contempt, obviously you would need the Department of Justice to decide to move on that, but it would start causing her problems in her private private world. You know, she would lose she would lose her bar license. So, it's not without significant repercussions to her. And I also hope we don't get there.

[00:06:49]I mean, a former attorney general, right, deciding not to come and and testify in a deposition to defy a subpoena of Congress. Uh, I, you know, I I again, I hope it doesn't get there. I hope she does the right thing uh just like the Clintons did. I hope she comes and uh understands the article one let we are article one legislative authority that we have uh and complies with that subpoena. I want to change to a different topic here and that's the feud that's exploding between Donald Trump uh and the Pope. And the Pope um issued a statement this morning where he said um woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth. Do you think that is a a subtweet on somebody?

[00:07:38]>> Well, first of all, it's weird to see Jesus and the Pope fighting.

[00:07:41]>> Okay. You know, I mean, that that's weird. Although you're >> First of all, you might be referring to that picture of Donald Trump as a doctor. So, I want to be I want to be totally fair. This is a this is him as a medical professional, >> right? It was him just taking the hypocratic oath. You're correct. I I apologize for my misrepresentation. By the way, do you think this was like workshopped in the White House or like he's just he's just riffing? Like do you think they were like, "Okay, we need to figure out how to change the subject, flood the zone, the thing that they do."

[00:08:07]And they were like, "Who who could we start a fight with?" They're like, "I don't know. How about the Pope?" just that'll really that'll really appeal to Catholics.

[00:08:16]>> We have seen so many distractions from distractions when you have Melania coming coming out and and issuing a statement on Epstein because the Iran war which was a distraction from Epstein is all getting so out of control and you have just like distractions from the distractions from the distractions. I think that's a testament to how things are going in this White House.

[00:08:34]>> Yeah. Something tells me this is not uh this is not what uh the president's people want him to be doing. just like, you know, maybe, you know, we know the president has always considered himself Jesus. Yeah.

[00:08:45]>> Uh but maybe like the imagery uh was not was not the right way for him to go.

[00:08:49]But, you know, look, he wants to change the subject. He doesn't want to talk about the economy. He doesn't want to talk about the Iran war. So, you know, here's here's a distraction. But, you know, uh I can't believe I'm going to quote Laura Ingram, but it was actually a good quote. She said to the president, "You don't have to swing at every pitch, Mr. President." Uh, and and he should probably he should have left this one alone.

[00:09:09]>> But I mean, look, he he does that's who he is. I mean, there is no there's there like he never lets sleeping dogs lie.

[00:09:17]There's never a moment where he doesn't feel like he needs to >> Well, it's a double down, triple down, right? The reason why I I think the reason why he's doubling and tripling down now on the Pope is that's really a double and triple down on the image he deleted. Okay? They're connected. Okay?

[00:09:32]I mean, don't tell me like he he's fighting with the pope within 24 hours of the photo of of him as a doctor.

[00:09:38]Yeah. Okay.

[00:09:41]Yeah. This is they're connected. This is his doubling and tripling down on that, you know, without talking about it, you know. So, you know, everyone's like, "Stop fighting with the Pope." And, you know, you double your triple down. It's offense all the time. And and and that might work nine nine times out of 10.

[00:09:55]It's not going to work here.

[00:09:56]>> Do you think that this has some some impact on the margins? And I asked this because look, we have all seen these instances where Donald Trump, you know, picks a fight with somebody um picks a fight with some sacred figure. He he's done it a million times and and you know, like we see this and we're like, "Oh, that's going to that's going to hurt him with whatever group, you know, that person represents and ultimately folks come back home to Trump." And so I'm just curious in this instance, you know, given the position that that the pope holds, if you think that this is going to have some impact on the margins for him as he continues to escalate this fight.

[00:10:31]>> So this is not happening in a vacuum, right? This is happening in the totality of things. So do do I think, you know, if he were just fighting with the pope 10 months ago, would it really matter, right? No, it wouldn't matter as much then as it will now when gas is $5, right? And you know, you know, we had we had two Americans shot in the streets while folks are roaming the streets wearing masks, right? You know, like you add all of this stuff in totality and and so the people who would have given him grace in the past, I just think maybe they stay home, maybe they don't vote. The independents who, you know, maybe went his way uh 18 months ago now decide not to go his way. And so it just it adds it constantly piles up.

[00:11:11]>> Uh and and that's why I do think it matters. I think his his his room for major mistakes now uh I I think is not the same as it was call it 10 12 months ago.

[00:11:25]>> Last question here and I want to go to a little bit of a different topic and that is um Ronda Santis will be calling a special legislative session in your home state of Florida at the end.

[00:11:34]>> Yeah, I heard something about that. I heard tell me what's going on Brian.

[00:11:37]What's going on with that?

[00:11:38]>> I got two questions here. one is is it a mistake for Dantis to try and move forward with yet another gerrymander especially in light of the swings that we're seeing right now and so if he draws these districts where he has to dilute um Republicans from safer red districts to put them in these blue districts to get them to flip um and we're seeing you know 12 14 16 20 point swings to the left he may actually draw a dummy mander which leaves more Democratic Democratic seats um in uh in place as we head toward, you know, in the aftermath of midterms. So that's my first question. Is it a mistake for De Santis to do this? And second, is your seat one that he would be that you would presume he would be targeting?

[00:12:21]>> Well, let me say this. You know, right now I think uh you just it just was announced that the governor moved the session uh a week later. My guess is they're monitoring what happens in Virginia. If Virginia uh if that passes and they wind up uh doing redistricting in Virginia, I think there's a three or four sweet seat swing there, Florida probably will look to to even that out, which is, you know, why this should never have started in the first place with Texas doing what they did.

[00:12:46]California then had to even it out. This is bad for everybody. It's bad for the American people. Uh it, you know, it's creating more partisanship. It means that Congress won't be able to function and you know there'll be 15 or 20 seats that we fight about uh nationally and races are going to cost 30 $40 million as there's less and less seats um for uh for you know that that are swing seats, right?

[00:13:08]>> So that's number one. Number two is um you know listen I just listen to my Republican colleagues. They're worried about redistricting. They're the ones who are going on record uh saying that they think this is a mistake for uh 26.

[00:13:22]Uh the governor drew the current districts. The current districts were in he drew uh and so the idea that there was a problem with them uh when he drew them. I don't think this is obviously all about redistricting. It's going to, you know, be a problem in the courts. In Florida, we don't have a statute that prohibits this. We have we have constitutional language that prohibits this. voters put this in the Florida Constitution, barring political gerrymandering, barring uh targeting uh incumbents.

[00:13:49]>> But I mean that that provision existed in the Constitution before and Ronda Santis was able to get the existing gerrymander through. So it's not like it doesn't seem to me like these Florida Supreme Court justices are uh are sticklers for originalism.

[00:14:02]>> Well, that's that's what happens when you get to a point six of the seven justices currently on the court. So, look, I' I'd rather be him uh than us uh in the way the dynamics are are set up.

[00:14:12]My seat, which was your second question, my seat's the closest seat in the state.

[00:14:15]It's a D+2. So, the idea that it's not going to be targeted. My my seat will be targeted. Uh because it's just it's just the math. U so we're going to have to see what they do. It's unclear. Uh my guess is that there are probably multiple versions and we're going to figure out which one they go with publicly when we see the map. There won't be a process in the legislature.

[00:14:33]The governor will draw the map. It'll go to a committee in the House. It'll go to a committee in the Senate. They'll pass it. It'll go to Florida. They'll pass it. This is probably done in three uh three or four days, which is different than we've seen in some of these other uh other states.

[00:14:45]>> Right. Right. Including the existing uh uh fight that's taking place in Virginia right now, where just like California, it's going to go to people to actually uh decide what happens here. Um >> if this were to go to the voter, my guess is if this were to go to the voters in Florida, they would turn this down.

[00:14:59]>> What will What will you do? What are your options here in front of you? Well, I got to see what the district looks like. Okay.

[00:15:05]>> Uh, you know, obviously I'm running for re-election right now. I'm committed to that process. Uh, but, you know, I'm I also know math, right? So, I think in 20 I think in 26, uh, you know, Democrats are well positioned. I usually, you know, perform five points better than the Democratic candidate at the top of the ticket in my district. You know, plus, if the generic Democratic balloting is up, you know, I'm in a I'm in a very good position to win even, you know, a decent Republican seat. But, we have to see what they do. And then depending upon how far they go, Brian, how far they really challenge what's called fair districts, which is what the voters put in the Constitution. We'll have to see obviously what the what the court does as well, >> right? Okay. Well, we will of course stay on top of this. Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time today. I appreciate it.

[00:15:46]>> Thanks, Brian.