“Certainly won't be the last”

Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co-founder of Angie. From roof repair to emergency plumbing and more. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well. Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project at Angie.com. Hi there, everyone. It's four o'clock in New York. It wasn't the first lie ever told before the United States Senate, and it certainly won't be the last. But what Attorney General Pam Bondi said before the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon may very well go down as one of the most brazen, most shameless, most verifiably false statements ever uttered in that setting. Quote, the two-tiered system of justice is over? In fact, if Pam Bondi's on the record testimony today served to prove anything out in public, anything at all, it is that a two-tiered system of justice has very much been operationalized is the new reality in the United States of America right now. Just as former FBI director James Comey, whose recent federal indictment initiated mayor days after a public pressure campaign, was a frequent topic of inquiry this afternoon. Again and again and again, Pam Bondi refused to answer questions on the matter, questions about Eric Siebert. He's the now former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He was forced to resign after he concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to indict James Comey. And questions about potential coordination between Donald Trump and the Department of Justice. Watch. The night before, James Comey's indictment, you had dinner with President of the United States. Pretty intimate group. Actually, there were a lot of people there that night. Was James Comey discussed at that dinner? I love that picture. That's a great picture. And there were a lot of people there that night. I think the entire cabinet was there. Did you discuss James Comey with the President of the United States? He was sitting just to your left. Well, two seats down. Yes. Two seats down. And I am not going to discuss any conversations I've had or not have with the President of the United States. Because the American public is entitled to know, Madam Attorney General. The entire cabinet was at that dinner. Whether you took instructions from President Trump after he told you very directly to indict James Comey, which is weaponization of the Department of Justice? Her refusal to answer legitimate questions, and if anything, to seem to make a mockery of the setting and the body itself, and to refuse to address those questions regarding ongoing controversies at the Department of Justice.

wasn't just focused on the James Comey prosecution. It extended to the latest reporting on Donald Trump's Borders' are Tom Homan and allegations that he accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents last year. What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI paid to Mr. Tom Homan in a Paper bag, evidently. Senator, as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Holman was subjected to a full review by the FBI, agents, and DOJ prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. And that was not my question. My question was, what became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Holman? Senator, I'd look at your facts. I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question. By the FBI agents and the DOJ. They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing. You know, you're very concerned about money and people taking money and you rail against dark money. Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. You work with dark money groups all the time. Senator. I would be more concerned if I were you when you talk about corruption and money that when you pushed for legislation that would subsidize your wife's company. The questions here are actually pretty specific. So having you respond with completely irrelevant far-right Internet talking points really is not very helpful here. Another exhausting non-answer seemingly read from some sort of opposition research book that didn't meet the caliber of something on a congressional campaign from a sitting attorney general today who was far more concerned with launching those ad hominant attacks on democratic lawmakers exclusively, the ones asking the tough questions, since she was in doing what her job says. she should do, which is answer questions in that setting, and what she said she would do, which is to end a two-tiered system of justice. It's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. MSNBC Justice and Intelligence Correspondent, Candelanian, is here. Also joining us, former top official at the Department of Justice, MSNBC legal analyst, Andrew Weissman's here and former Democratic Senator, MSNBC political analyst, Claire McCaskill's here. Claire, I'm going to start with you because I think you're the only person here. who may have recognized her attacks as just run-of-the-mill sort of flunky campaign level opo that was in her binder along with a bunch of prepared statements. I've never seen that before, have you?

Oh, no, I've never seen anything like this by a low-level witness off the street, much less the attorney general, the sitting attorney general of the United States. And you're right, it's low-level oppo-b-s. But here's the thing that's stunning about her testimony today. I am shocked that no Republican on the committee spoke up. when the Attorney General of the United States spent the entire time of her questioning by Democratic senators screaming, refusing to answer basic oversight questions, and attacking them with ad hominem, not factual attacks that were personal in nature, and no one said a word on the Republican side. Especially the chairman of the committee, Chuck Grassley. This never would have been allowed to go on. when I was in the United States Senate. There would have been a bipartisan effort to stop that witness in their tracks. That's how far the Republican Party in the United States Senate has fallen. And the members of that Judiciary Committee with an R behind their names, they are single-handedly, brick-by-brick, undoing the power of the Senate to have oversight in one of the most legendary committees in history. They are permanently impacting the ability of our democracy to function as our founding fathers intended. And it was a shocking display, and it was so stupid and ugly and frankly embarrassing. I am really surprised no one spoke up, not one of them. Kendalini, and you were monitoring this for us. I guess I would point out the... Mission was obviously to vamp for Fox News clips. She probably scored high marks for that endeavor. I'm sure she'll look great tonight. But Trump is sitting at a 37% approval rating, and one of the most unpopular things he's doing is weaponizing the Department of Justice. 70% of Americans oppose. sort of a vague question about weaponization, and the number goes higher when you put in indicting James Comey, indicting these people. He doesn't even bring along all of the people who voted for him less than one year ago. What was this about in your view? It was about not answering questions, Nicole, first and foremost, because these were questions that were, that the answers to which I think really put the Trump administration in a very difficult position. Why did you fire the U.S. attorney who wouldn't bring the case?

Did Tom Homan take the money? These are questions they don't want to answer. And so the strategy was, as you said, to read from an oppo sheet and to attack each senator individually. And, you know, you could debate about whether the Democrats had a good strategy to rebut that. I personally don't think that they did, although some did better than others. But you're right. Claire is absolutely right. We've never seen anything like this before. Christopher Ray used to go up there and get railed by the Republicans on the hill. They would attack him left, right, and center. making baseless allegations, and he would just sit there and take it, because that's what he thought was his role as FBI director, not to fight back, not to read from an op-o sheet, and no doubt he could have as the FBI director. But one of the most striking things to me about today was that there were a lot of questions that she could hide behind. That's a pending investigation, or I don't talk about personnel matters. But one place where that does not apply is the Tom Homan matter, because that is a closed investigation. There's nothing pending about it. And so it's hard for me to imagine that she doesn't know the factual answer to the question of, did he actually accept the money from an FBI undercover? And what happened to that money? She, I mean, if she's seen the files, if she's talked to anybody who's reviewed that case, she knows the answer of that question, and she refused to answer it today, and she has no really no good reason to answer it, and not to answer it, rather. And that is a fundamental question that I think we can all agree, like, the American public has a right to that information. This person who's wielding enormous power in the government right now... according to our sources and according to a document we've seen, accepted $50,000 from undercover FBI agents in a sting as part of a corruption investigation. The Justice Department dropped that investigation. They're telling us it was reviewed and there was no crime found, but they won't release any of the documents and they won't even tell us the basic facts. Did he keep the money? If he did, did he pay taxes on it. So that to me was the most extraordinary moment of an extraordinary day. I mean, Ken, two follow-up questions for you on that. I mean, I think they did more than what you just articulated. Today, Fox News is reporting that the FBI fired and dismantled the entire corruption squad. It was ostensibly about phone records being swept up in the investigation of the insurrection on January 6th. But they don't just... excuse their own, they destroy the law enforcement capability that might damage their own. What did they say about that, if anything? This was, Nicole, an insidious triumph of right-wing propaganda because Chuck Grassley releases this redacted FBI document that shows that the FBI, as part of the Jack Smith investigation, obtained the tolling records to and from records that are the property of the phone company and that are obtainable by a subpoena, not a warrant, not a court order, but a subpoena. The FBI obtained those in the course of the investigating the insurrection. But Chuck Grassley puts that out, right-wing media.

And all of our laws are only as good as the law enforcement officers who are willing to enforce them. And that particular statute does not seem to be enforced right now. And Andrew, that's a great segue. I mean, because that's about them, right? I mean, the Attorney General of the United States and America peddled political propaganda in a binder that was in front of her at a Senate Oversight Committee. These folks make decisions, the Democrats and the Republicans on the committee, about her budget, about her operating funds, and she gets to set the policy for better or for worse. Those are the consequences of our elections. But what she doesn't get to do is break all the laws in public without at least being called out. And for better or for worse, I know they watch. If you want to call us and tell us who created the opposition research that the Attorney General read from today, the lines are open, as they say. But Andrew Weissman, I thought today was pretty tectonic. in broadcasting the I Don't Give An F about any of you, senators of the Democratic and Republican Party, because to Claire's point, they looked complicit and or weak, and that the rule of law, as you've known it before today is over. Well, that is the through line of your discussion with Kenna and Claire. So, you know, you have the Attorney General saying, you know, the rule of law applies to everyone. No one's above the law. But, you know, let's just take the Hatch Act. You have what appears to be over and over again, this administration violating the Hatch Act, as Ken pointed out. They're out of office. messaging says it's the Democrats' fault. That is in violation of the Hatch Act, that's just one example. But they have launched a hatch act investigation, and they have said it publicly, of Jack Smith. So how is that the rule of law in this country? How is that treating them the same? How is it the rule of law, to Claire's point, that you don't actually believe in oversight? One of the responsibilities of the executive is to go to these committees and to answer questions. It is not to attack them is to answer questions. Of course, there will be some questions you can't answer for various reasons, but you're not sitting there sparring with them. That is anathema to the rule of law. To Ken's point about getting rid of public integrity and public corruption squads. There is no, no one is above the law if you don't investigate public corruption. You don't investigate white collar crime. So sit there and mouth, the truism of no one is about the law is meaningless if you don't actually have the agents investigating a whole swath of people who you don't want to investigate, whether it's Tom Homan's or a bunch of rich.

contributors who are supporters of yours, but you do want to investigate perceived enemies. So to me, this is all of a piece, which is the truism that, oh, no one is above the law and, you know, we're not weaponizing is just words when you look at what they're actually doing, which is creating a complete two-tier system of justice in this country. It seemed to, Andrew, that the efforts to... deny reality, at least around the Holman case, where to Ken's point, there's a tape. I mean, a lot of the facts aren't in dispute. When the first reports that Ken and Carol filed, who broke the story, none of the facts were in dispute. Now, there's been a papering over propagandizing effort, so Lord knows what is the current line on that. But she seemed to sort of walk back from the facts as they were accepted by all parties when the story first broke. Yeah, so let me, I want to just dig deeper into her answer, which is she said, oh, but nobody found a sort of current law being violated, so we closed it. That is not the issue. It is true that what's been reported, and if you took this bag of cash promising that when he became a public official, he was going to do favors, that means that you're thinking he is going to become a public official, which he in fact did. And you want to see whether he was then going to carry out what he promised. And so it may be that he didn't commit a violation at the moment that he took the cash. But nobody, no good agent or prosecutor, nobody experienced would close the investigation then. You would wait to see what happens. That was the question I would ask her. It's like, why would you possibly close that? There's only one reason. If the reporting is accurate, there's no reason to think it isn't. that you would close that investigation is because you have a two-tier system here. And if you really thought that he was innocent, wouldn't Mr. Hohmannes be the first person, the very first person to say, release the tape? Let everyone see what happened because I'm innocent. And that is not what is happening. He is not called for that, and the Department of Justice has not offered that. I have some of that line of questioning. I'm going to show it to all of you. Kendallanian has been working overtime today to help all of us. Thank you for starting us off. Claire and Andrews stick around. Ahead for us, more of combative Pam Bondi running out of things to say. We confronted about a potentially explosive allegation involving Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein will show you that moment as well. And later in the broadcast, National Guard troops from Texas have arrived in the Chicago area as federal agents continue attents. and sometimes brutal crackdown in largely immigrant communities around Chicago. Jacob Soberoff is alive on the ground for us there. He'll bring us the latest. We'll have all those stories and more when Deadland White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you?

While now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. You know that thing where you get an amazing pair of shoes at a really great price and want to tell everyone about it? Yeah, so do we. Here at Designer Shoe Warehouse, we'll give you something to brag about. Like the latest styles from brands you love, or the trends everyone's obsessing over. Or shoes that make you feel like, well, you. So go ahead, show off a little. Find shoes that get you with prices that get your budget. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. DSW. Let us surprise you. Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co-founder of Angie. One thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. For decades, Angie's helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. Angie, the one you trust, to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project at Angie.com. We're back with Andrew and Claire. Claire, let me show you this moment that Andrew's talking about and I talked about the existence of a tape with Mr. Tom Homan on it, allegedly. You know, there's a tape, right, with Mr. Tom Homan? I mean, first of all, is there a tape that has audio and video of the transfer of the $50,000? You would have to talk to Director Kash Patel about that. No, I'm talking to you. I don't know the answer, Senator. You do know the answer to that. Don't call me a liar. In her best, nobody puts baby in the corner voice. Claire, the whole idea of Trump. operating with actual immunity and being so liberal with his pardons is that they could actually answer the questions like that's what they're supposed to do that wouldn't hurt them at all politically it might actually help them um But this whole double speak isn't even strong enough. This whole, don't ask me, it's almost like an Greg Abbott and Costello who's on first schick she's doing. And this is, and I know we talk about how far we've fallen. This was embarrassing even for MAGA. Well, first of all, with respect to Senator Welch, he should have immediately said, yes, you are lying, or you're the most incompetent attorney general that's ever held the job, because if you've got a powerful person in your administration who was part of an undercover sting and you haven't bothered to find out whether or not there's a tape, talk about malpractice, talk about somebody who doesn't know what they're doing. And here's the thing. I mean, we've talked about this $50,000. I want to remind everybody, that's taxpayer money. That's $50,000 of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars that they gave to Tom Homan.

And they refused to say what happened to it. I mean, they want to talk about cutting the budget and firing federal officials. They won't even tell the United States Senate Judiciary Committee what happened to the taxpayers 50 grand that the FBI gave to Tom Homan. That is... Just such basic oversight, the idea in a closed investigation, she thinks she has no obligation to answer that. And that none of the Republicans, Lindsey Graham and all those Harvard and Yale educated lawyers on the other side of the dais, the Republicans felt no need to follow up and say, well, really, Attorney General, we need to know what happened to the $50,000. And I think everybody ought to start asking what happened to the $50,000. I think it's a question that they must answer and it needs to get answered. I wonder, actually, let me play a little bit more of what happened. This is Senator Amy Klobuchar. Let's watch this. I was going to ask you if you received advice, instruction, or request from anyone at the White House to direct the department to engage in any investigations, prosecutorial actions, including decisions not to investigate or prosecute anyone. I'm not going to discuss any conversations. Then how about the truth social post on September 20th, 2025, in which the president said, we can't delay any longer, Pam, using your name, not bringing criminal. charges are killing our reputation, his words, and credibility. And then goes on to tell you to prosecute a member of this committee, to prosecute the Attorney General of New York, and to prosecute James Comey. Do you consider that a directive to the Justice Department? Senator Amy Klobuchar, President Trump is the most transparent president in American history. And I don't think he said anything that he hasn't said for years. So Andrew Weissman, two things. They only did this because if you spend a few minutes down sort of their MAGaverse and their information feedback loop, they're really only doing what they want to do, right? So when Stephen Miller walks out to the driveway and fields questions from reporters, it's not because he believes that the press is important. It's because he's doling out that day's dribble of propaganda for the right-leaning outlets. And sometimes a real journalist gets to ask him a question and he revels in belittling that. I mean, that's what's happening. at this high level of this administration right now. So she's only there because she thinks this is good for her, right? She wasn't there to answer questions. There was no good faith on her part. There's some pictures that folks have flagged for me of the oppo binder. It is exactly as it sounded like, an opposition research binder with information inside only about Democratic senators. But here's the deal.

Her weakness and impotence and status as a puppet was revealed already through the Eric Siebert firing and resignation. He had a direct line. He's not a deep state actor. He's not a liberal Democrat. He's a son-in-law of Richard Cullen, who's the most senior Republican advisor to the Republican governor of Virginia. And he had a direct line inside Pam Bondi's office and her closest deputies. And she tried to keep him in his job and failed because she wasn't strong enough. He didn't want to bring a case against James Comey. Pam lost. Siebert's gone. And now Lindsey Halligan has charged James Comey or has brought. two charges against James Comey to a grand jury. It is possible that a jury sees that case and convicts him. That is always possible. We won't prejudge what a jury will do. But Bill Barr writes in his book that, quote, no one at DOJ thought there was anything there. John Durham, who spent three and a half years and seven million dollars, reached the same conclusion. What Pam Bondi did today, she didn't have to do, but she showed the world how feckless she is. And I wonder why you think she did that. Well, I really do think Ken hit the nail on the head, which is, I mean, there are not good answers to these questions. On the James Comey issue, the Department of Justice has a strong and valid rule that you do not charge someone unless you have a reasonable belief and good faith belief that you are going to be able to convict that person after trial. beyond a reasonable doubt and that the conviction will be sustained on appeal. When the grand jury votes 14 to 9, meaning they barely had the sort of majority that was necessary of 12, only based on probable cause, when they barely could vote that, you obviously aren't going to meet, at least at this stage, unless they get new evidence, they obviously aren't going to meet that standard. And so she looks like the puppet that she is. And she didn't stand up to Trump. She didn't say, I'm going to hold the rule of law. Here, she didn't actually have the DOJ rules enforced, which is that you don't. you know, indict somebody unless you think you can win at trial. So that clearly means that you're going to just see that sort of what happens in the future. You're going to see this happening over and over again where you indict people, but they all get acquitted. And that is exactly why DOJ has their rule. So that doesn't happen. And she is basically signaling that she's fine with that and she is not answering any questions. But I do think the big picture here, what we are seeing. is the complete collapse of a branch of government. We know what the executive branch is, right? We know that they're going to push and they don't aren't taking the rules seriously, either they're on internal rules or the law seriously. And that's why courts keep on finding against them over and over again, including

Republican judges appointed by Donald Trump in the first term. But I think what you're really seeing here is the complete collapse of the sort of Republican Party in Congress from in any way standing up for this separate branch of government. I mean, to me, that was really the story. You know who Pam Bondi is. You know who Donald Trump is. It was really surprising. I agree with Claire when I was in government. The Judiciary Committee, particularly in the Senate. was sort of a hallowed place. That's where you expected there was going to be an intelligent conversation with people really trying to get answers to meaningful oversight. I mean, look, I'm not as idealistic as you two are. I think 2007 is calling and they want their idealism back. But even a year ago, it was a politically oriented body. And 70% of Americans are turned off by political prosecutions. And so even if it isn't what it once was, it is right now today based on polling in the Wall Street Journal. unpopular with 70% of Americans, including, I think, more than 40% of self-described MAGA Republicans to politicize prosecutions. So if not the whole idea that the founders had about three branches of government, then public opinion polling in the Wall Street Journal, you'd think one of those would wake them up. But no. You guys stick around because there's more. When we come back, the petition that could force a vote on the Epstein files being made public. That vote in Congress needs just one more signature to be considered. That might be why Speaker Mike Johnson is stalling on swearing in the one Democrat who could provide said signature. We get to talk to her next.

You know that thing where you get an amazing pair of shoes at a really great price and want to tell everyone about it? Yeah, so do we. Here at Designer Shoe Warehouse, we'll give you something to brag about. Like the latest styles from brands you love, or the trends everyone's obsessing over. Or shoes that make you feel like, well, you. So go ahead, show off a little. Buying shoes that get you have prices that get your budget. That's your DSW store or DSW.com today. DSW. Let us surprise you. Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co-founder of Angie. From roof repair to emergency plumbing and more. When you use Angie for your home projects, you know all your jobs will be done well. Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find a pro for your project at Angie.com. Sometimes life will get you stressed out. Lucky you can always count on text now. Free talk, free text, 35G, and they'll never shut you off. Because like I said, it's free. Text Now's got your back nationwide, no long-term contracts. But don't be nervous, not losing service. Text Now's got your back. That's their sense of purpose. No matter what comes next, you've got free talk and text with the TextNow app. Download it today. Wireless plans require the purchase of a SIM card. Visit TextNow.com for terms and conditions. Silence speaks volumes, doesn't it? A combative Attorney General Pam Bondi reading from her Apollo book before the Senate Judiciary Committee today suddenly went silent. And she was asked about one thing. Donald Trump's relationship with dead sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. After her attempt at deflection fell flat, here's what happened when she was pressed by Senator Sheldon White House of her whether or not there are incriminating photos of Donald Trump in the hidden Epstein files. There's been public reporting that Jeffrey Epstein showed people photos of President Trump with half-naked young women. Do you know if the FBI found those photographs in their search of Jeffrey Epstein's safe or premises or otherwise? Have you seen any such thing? You know, Senator White House, you sit here and make salacious remarks once again trying to slander President Trump, left and right. When you're the one who was taking money from one of Epstein's closest confidence, I believe, I could be wrong, correct me, Reid Hoffman, who was... with Jeffrey Epstein on multiple occasions. And the senator sitting right next to you tried to block the flight logs from being released. Yet you're grilling me on President Trump and some photograph with Epstein? Come on. The question is, did the FBI find those photographs that have been discussed publicly by a witness who claimed Jeffrey Epstein showed them to him? You don't know anything about that. Okay. Barney's spoken, though, about this before in our own comments about the Epstein case came back to Haunter.

This is something Donald Trump has talked about. The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. Why did you publicly claim to have the Epstein client list waiting for your review and then produce nothing relevant to that claim? Our memo in Epstein clearly points out that there was no client list. So clearly one of those two statements is a lie. Let her decide in the end which one it is. And what would settle this issue once and for all is the bipartisan, one of the only bipartisan efforts in Congress right now, the bipartisan Epstein discharge petition. Now that would force the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein files and they'd have the cover of the bipartisan piece of legislation. That petition is right now today one signature shy of the 2018 votes needed to force a full House vote on a bill to release the Epstein, 218, release the files. Congresswoman-elect Adelaidehira of Arizona is set to be the 218 signature needed when she has sworn in. Her swearing in was delayed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who canceled votes for the week. But here's what he had to say when asked about it today. Earlier this year, you swore in two Republican members during a pro forma session. So why not swear in Adelaide Rialva, who was elected two weeks ago during a pro forma session? Does it have to do with her 218 signature on the discharge petition, the FC district? No, it has nothing to do with that at all. We will swear her in when everybody gets back. It's a ceremonial duty. Look, we'll schedule it, I guess, as soon as she wants. We'll schedule it as soon as she wants. The hour after he said, quote, we'll schedule it as soon as she wants, his staffers walk that back. I want to bring in Representative Elect Adelaide Tegrohava of Arizona. Congratulations. And when you heard that he said he would schedule your swearing in whenever you want, did you reach out to his office? Yes, we did. We sent a letter yesterday saying, give me a date. Just any, just give me a date. Confirm it. And I, you know, I'm seriously concerned with the precedent that this delay in my swearing in is setting for future races across the country, which is what if the speaker doesn't want to, he doesn't have to swear us in. And he can't just ignore the will of the people. Our oath of office is one that I take seriously. And it just continues to be this sort of, you know, ball that he keeps kicking down the road. As we are talking right now, do you have any idea what the window is on when you might be sworn in? No, and it's so frustrating because everywhere I go, I have people in our community, in our district, over 10,000 federal workers that are unsure when their next check is coming. And they want me to fight for them. And they want to know what resources are available from our office. I don't have an office. I have in D.C., my placard is literally there. My name is there where my dad's used to be. It's so special. And I am standing outside.

with locked doors because at this point now that the shutdown is happening, I can't even get into the building without being exported in by another member's staffers. What is the process or can you take us inside the negotiation with the speaker's office to try to secure a date or a time for your swearing in? I know leader Hakeem Jeffries has been reaching out directly. So when that comment was made, he said, okay, Adidtta's ready. Let's get her on a flight. You give us the, let's confirm it, that it will happen tomorrow. And he just walked that back. And so, you know, the bedrock of our democracy is free, unobstructed elections. If Speaker Johnson believes this, as I do, then he will quit toying with our democratic process and swear me in. And the reporter there, I believe that was a journalist from CNN and asking the speaker why Republican members elect were sworn in immediately and you haven't been, makes the partisan nature of refusing to schedule your swearing in pretty clear. Is there any explanation other than partisanship from his office that you've heard? Well, if you look at even Representative Watkinshaw, who was elected about three weeks ago, three or three, now is it four, three weeks ago today and sworn in in under 24 hours, the same with Bertonez and Fine. The only difference is Watkinshaw, Congress was in session. And with Bertonez and Fine, they were on a pro forma, which is what I was at last week, standing there on the House floor waiting to be sworn in. And we were gaveled in and out without any consideration. of even hearing any motions from the floor. Is there any information that you understand to be holding this up other than your 218th vote on the discharge petition for the Epstein files? You know, I really had consistently in my life tried to come up with like, what is the most plausible reason? Not, you know, conspiracy theory because that would that. That sort of came out really early on. But this is really the only thing I can point to. And perhaps this time is giving Speaker Johnson an opportunity to try to lobby the other four Republicans who have signed on to try to convince them to take their name off. It's the only thing I can think of because the only people losing out here are the constituents from Arizona CD7 who elected me to do a job. And Speaker Johnson is now allowing me to do that. Yeah, there's been some reporting that maximum political pressure is being applied to the Republicans, which is interesting because 81% of all Americans believe that Donald Trump is hiding something in the Epstein files and that that is why they haven't been released. So there's certainly not public pressure to keep them hidden. It's just Trump and Johnson applying pressure to them. Do you have some sympathy in a weird way for the pressure that those Republicans might be under? Absolutely not. Who I have sympathy for are the victims of sexual assault that are in these files and the fact that they deserve justice and they deserve to have their voice out there. And the people who perpetrated these crimes deserve to have legal consequences for what they did. That's who deserves our empathy and advocacy right now.

And the survivors have been doing some of the work as well, spending time on Capitol Hill, regardless of political affiliation. I hope you will keep us posted if circumstances change. We'd love to talk to you again. Representative Elect Adelaidehira Hava, again, congratulations. And thank you for joining us today. Thank you so much for having me. I want to show all of you how this went with Pam Bondi when she was confronted with questions about the Epstein files and investigation. We'll do that on the other side of a break. Stay with us. So who gave the order to flag records related to President Trump? To flag records for President Trump? To flag any records, which included his name. I'm not going to discuss anything about that with you, Senator. Eventually, you're going to have to answer for your conduct in this. You won't do it today, but eventually you will. I mean, I'm back to my earlier question. It's a mystery to me why she was there at all. Claire, this story, though, is one, you know, we talked about 70% of... Americans who opposed political prosecutions, 81% of Americans think they're involved in a cover-up at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, the White House, and the FBI. These are the facts about the documents, as have been reported by this news organization and countless others, and this is what happened today. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on Senate Judiciary asked each of the Trump administration officials to respond to information received by his office that suggested FBI personnel were specifically instructed to flag records mentioning Trump, quote my office. office was told that these personnel were instructed to flag any records in which Trump was mentioned. Why were they told to flag the records? And he got stonewalled. The whole journey that Pam Bondi goes on from saying on Fox News, they're on my desk, the client list is on my desk, to an unsigned memo in the middle of the night on a Friday summer night, that that's it, folks, after hauling all the right-wing influencers into the White House and giving them white binders that look remarkably similar to her op-a book today, is because they find Trump's name in the files. And the thousand FBI agents that go through them have the job of finding and flagging it. Why, Claire, is this being, again, so brazenly rewritten when all these facts are already out there? It's really a head scratcher, isn't it? I mean, you know, this stuff's going to come out. She's going to file. Johnson can deny her constituents' representation for only so long. And she's going to sign that discharge petition, and Republicans, a lot of them will vote for it once it comes to the floor. So it is hard to figure out. And, you know, I was thinking when she was answering that question, and I think Andrew will back me up here. When I was a courtroom prosecutor. And I had a witness on the stand. And they looked the way she looked when he asked that question. What was flashing through her brain was her telling the FBI agents in Kash Patel to go through those records and flagged Donald Trump's name.

And that was that pause you saw. And you know what? Jury see that pause. And the American people see that pause. And she can come back with yelling and snark and ugly all she wants. It doesn't change the fact that she lied about there not being a list of clients. She's lying about there, nothing being in that file that is important to the victims of these crimes. And I do think they're going to be found out. And by the way, You know, all the stuff they're doing right now, I mean, they're prosecuting James Comey for lying in front of the Senate. I hope she tries that shirt on and likes how it fits. Andrew, I wonder, I've learned so much about the story that I didn't know before Trump came back and went back on a campaign promise, a promise that brought along a lot of the support he garnered in the manosphere. And like potent conspiracy theories, or I guess unlike a lot of the conspiracy theories, they peddle, the brutal truth here is that, They believe the truth before they peddled the lies. And when they believe the truth, they said things like, put on your big boy pants and tell us who the pedophiles are. That's Kash Patel's most pointed line at House Republicans about doing just what Mike Johnson is preventing Congress from doing, which is passing legislation to release the files. What do you see with sort of your prosecutor and investigator eyes in terms of the upcoming twists and turns here? Well, to Claire's point, this is one where her silence and saying, I'm not answering speaks volumes. Why wouldn't you? If the answer is no, why wouldn't you say that? I mean, to me, it's sort of plain that the answer would have to be yes. Otherwise, why wouldn't you just say, well, of course, that didn't happen? But the same token, at this point, they are doing so much to obstruct. the people of the United States seeing the full scope of what Jeffrey Epstein, a sexual predator, and Glenn Maxwell were up to so much that they're willing to deny the absolute right to vote of a representative elect. That's how far they're going. That is denying a constitutional right just so that you can protect. whatever is in those files. And you have to say to yourself in common sense, if there wasn't something really damaging in there, why would you go to this length? And the same thing to your clip with Senator White House. If the answer to the question is that those photos did not exist, why wouldn't you say that? And so the more that they fight, and this is something I think Claire will know, when you see a witness on the stand who fights and is refusing to give answers and refuses to even answer or just keeps on sort of battling with the questioner, you know that there's a there's a day or there. And to me, this is all going to blow up when it's going to happen that we will at some point see those files and these people have to be held to account in terms of being on the side of

Jeffrey Epstein and really hiding what is in those files from the American public. Andrew Weissman and Claire McGaskill. Thank you for spending the hour with me coming up next in the next hour of Deadline White House, a tense atmosphere right now in Chicago. As the first National Guard troops arrive, Jacob Soberoff is on the ground there and he'll join us live after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Snoring, gasping for air during sleep, daytime sleepiness. I'm Shaquille O'Neill, and this shouldn't be anybody's experience. Ask your doctor about Zep bound to hepatine. The first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, OSA, and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, or 15 milligram injection. Zepound contains chrezepotide and should not be used with other chrezebitide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepound is safe and effective for use in children. Don't share needles or pens or reuse needles. Don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer, or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop Zepbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing, pregnant, plan to be, or taking birth control pills. Taking Zepound with a sulfonel urea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor. Call 1-800-545-99 or visit zepbound.lily.com.