Pam Bondi LOSES CONTROL After CAUGHT Breaking LAW In Congress!

I'm not asking about either side. I'm asking, you're the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the United States. You have a responsibility directly. You swore an oath to the Constitution, not the President. Want to know what your views are on the extent to which pardons cover potential crimes committed by individuals who have been pardoned but unrelated to January 6th? Do you mean the ones that were done by the auto pen? I'm not going to discuss anything that could or not be pending respectfully. I, you know, Ms. DeLauro accused you of filibustering. I think that's the height of filibustering. We're in a dramatic constitutional confrontation today where every facet of the framers design has been activated to try and save constitutional democracy and freedom. From the day he took office, Trump has tried to exercise powers like a king, trampling the rights of the people, usurping the powers of Congress, denouncing judges and threatening to defy the rulings of courts and violating the legitimate authority of states and their own. Stock, Trump media stock fell 13% in the following days. Seems you avoided that loss. Well done. I yield back. May I answer that, Chairman? I complied with my ethics and yeah, I would take a class in financial literacy if you think I profited from that because I lost a tremendous amount of money. Congresswoman and also on page 25 of my SJ2, it lists my involvement with Cutter for anti-human trafficking for the World Cup. Thank you. At times, it genuinely seems as if Donald Trump assembled his cabinet through a contest to find the most corrupt and woefully unqualified individuals possible. And unfortunately, it's the American public that continues to suffer the consequences. Today offered a glaring, almost surreal illustration of that dysfunction. Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared before Congress and was absolutely dismantled, raw, unfiltered, and on the record. Confronted directly over her alleged misconduct during Trump's administration, she didn't defend herself with clarity or composure. She spiraled. What followed wasn't just an emotional outburst. It was a spectacular public meltdown that managed to humiliate not just herself, but Donald Trump as well. And it all began with Congresswoman Madeline Dean, who wasted no time cutting straight to the heart of the matter. Of this administration are incompetence, corruption, and cruelty. I'm going to focus today on corruption. And in my mind, there are two types of corruption, personal, and then the other I'm going to call public, governmental. Attorney General, have you ever been registered as an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? I assume you're talking about when I represented the country of Qatar for a very short time. Hold on. No, no, no. For anti-human trafficking for the World Cup. Anti-human trafficking for the World Cup. You can't put words in my mouth. You want to talk about incompetence? You're the one that said Joe Biden on PBS was competent. You had to retract those words. Mr. Chairman. Don't insult me publicly. This is so discourteous. This is so outside the committee's guidelines. Taking a personal shot at me while swiping at Biden. Very strange and very unprofessional of you. The answer is yes or no. And the answer is yes. You were registered as a lobbyist for Qatar. Is that correct? Yes. Never mind. Don't answer. Did you disclose that when you went before the Senate for confirmation? Yes or no? No, it was not in your documents. The answer is no. President Trump. This was discussed at my confirmation hearings in detail. Well, it was discussed, but you failed to bring up the conflict that you had. President Trump recently announced he'd accept that $400 million Qatar airplane because it was just prettier than the one he was flying around in. Is it true that you gave advice that this was legally permissible? Yes or no? I will not discuss any advice that my office of legal counsel gives to the president of the United States on any matter. When you spoke before the Senate, you said you would ask for ethical advice. Did you recuse yourself from that issue? And talking about unprofessional, you say the president wanted a jet because it's pretty? Excuse me. This is a Senate. This is a congressional hearing. He said it himself. Let me go to April the 2nd. You're a part of this. The president has dabbled in meme coin. He had you, the DOJ disband the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. His son recently launched the Executive Branch Club, a private club with $500,000 memberships here in DC. Any of this seemed like it might be a problem, might be profiteering from the office, and maybe you and your ethics team might be concerned about these conflicts of interest, your own and the president and his family. Yes or no? Any concerns? What I would be concerned about in Pennsylvania are all the child sex cases that we prosecuted, all the CCM cases that we prosecuted. Did you hear my question? That's what I would be concerned about. I asked the witness to actually answer questions that are asked. Congresswoman Dean. Chairman. Please let the witness answer the question. She didn't. And I would like to ask you one more question. You're not just complicit in this. You're actively helping and profiting. Isn't it true that on April the 2nd, the same day that Trump announced his chaotic tariff regime that plummeted the stock market, you sold more than $1 million worth of your shares in Trump media stock. Trump media stock fell 13% in the following days. Seems you avoided that loss. Well done. I yield back. May I answer that chairman? I complied with my ethics and yeah, I would take a class in financial literacy if you think I profited from that because I lost a tremendous amount of money. Congresswoman and also on page 25 of my SJ two, it lists my involvement with cutter for anti-human trafficking for the world cup. Thank you. What's truly astonishing about Pam Bondi's response is the sheer nonchalance with which she attempts to dismiss what appears to be blatant insider trading. She all but admits to the act, then tries to trivialize it by claiming the stock wasn't worth much to begin with an argument. So hollow. It's insulting. Let's be clear. She offloaded over a million dollars in Trump media shares just before the market nosedived. That isn't coincidence. That's classic insider maneuvering and her justification that Trump's media venture is essentially a sham, a hollow dysfunctional outfit designed not to succeed, but to serve as a personal cash machine for Donald Trump. She's not even denying corruption. She's shrugging it off by painting the entire enterprise as a failed grift from the start. Truth social isn't a legitimate platform. It's a money laundering operation for ego and influence wrapped in tech branding. Bondi's defense didn't just expose her own ethical failures. It laid bare the moral bankruptcy of the entire Trump apparatus. And the spectacle didn't stop there. When pressed on Trump's pardons for January 6 insurrectionists, she once again crumbled. Her responses were evasive, muddled, and deeply revealing. Not of legal nuance, but of an administration desperately trying to justify the indefensible. Mostly following the aftermath of January 6th, recently several defendants who received presidential pardons related to that day are now arguing in court that the pardon covers crimes like, for instance, illegal firearm possession discovered in the search of an individual's home in California months after January 6th. What's your position on whether the pardons cover these separate offenses? Yeah, the pardon power rests with the president, not the Department of Justice, and some of that is pending litigation, and I cannot discuss pending litigation. Well, I'm not asking you about who has the right to a pardon. I think as the Department of Justice in February wrote, the pardon is an act of grace which removes the punishment from a crime a person has committed. In its effect, the granting of a pardon is in no sense the overturning of a judgment of conviction. It is an executive action that mitigates or sets aside punishment. So, as the chief law enforcement officer, what's your opinion? Not the president's power of whether he can offer a pardon. That's pretty clear in the Constitution. But for crimes committed unrelated to January 6th, would you suggest that the pardons would cover activities or crimes potentially committed outside of that by the same person? Well, I don't know if you're referring to Joe Biden pardoning his son after he said he would not pardon Hunter Biden or the commutation of all the sentences that the people that were on death row. I've met with those families, and all of those sentences were commuted. I'm not going to comment on pardons on either side of the aisle. So, well, I'm not asking about either side. I'm the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. You have a responsibility directly. You swore an oath to the Constitution, not the president. I want to know what your views are on the extent to which pardons cover potential crimes committed by individuals who have been pardoned but unrelated to January 6th. Do you mean the ones that were done by the auto pen? I'm not going to discuss anything that could or not be pending litigation. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, Ms. DeLauro accused you of filibustering. I think that's the height of filibustering. This is a serious, serious topic, and for you to suggest that you don't have an opinion or to divert to other things that had nothing to do with January 6th pardons, I think is, frankly, demeaning to your responsibilities. Pam Bondi can't bring herself to answer the questions, not because she doesn't understand them, but because she knows the answers would be politically devastating. Her constant deflections aren't part of a calculated defense. They're a last-ditch attempt to avoid public accountability. And she's not alone. The entire MAGA movement is tangled in the contradictions of its own disinformation campaign, spinning wildly from one narrative to the next. One moment they're pledging allegiance to law enforcement, the next they're defending violent insurrectionists who beat police officers with flagpoles. Was January 6th a peaceful protest? A righteous rebellion? A covert Antifa operation? Or perhaps a deep state plot cooked up by Biden and Pelosi? Their story changes with the news cycle, and the incoherence has become impossible to ignore. It's not just hypocritical. It's not just hypocritical. It's a national embarrassment. The intellectual contortions required to excuse this level of criminality are exhausting and absurd. That's why the presence of voices like Congressman Jamie Raskin is so crucial. He isn't just pushing back. He's dismantling the charade piece by piece. Today, with sharp precision, Raskin stripped away the pretense and forced the truth into the open. It wasn't just a necessary intervention. It was a masterclass in holding power to account. 15 federal judges impeached in all of American history by the Congress of the United States. And it's always for corruption or bribery or income tax evasion. It's for actually engaging in a crime, a high crime or misdemeanor, not because the Congress disagrees with their analysis, much less because Congress disagrees with their correct analysis of a legal problem. It's never happened before. The Bill of Rights was added to protect the rights and freedoms of the people against abuse by the government, whether it's a Congress passing laws that infringe on liberty or a president making up laws usurping congressional powers or violating constitutional rights or indeed states trespassing the rights of the people. Now, here's the amazing thing. The framers understood, like Lord Acton, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And so they arranged a constitutional system where power would be vertically divided, shared and distributed between the federal government in the states and localities, as well as horizontally distributed among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. And the branches would check one another's abusive ambitions and the people would exercise their freedoms of speech, press assembly, petition of government and so on to counterbalance the tyrannical propensities of government generally. We're in a dramatic constitutional confrontation today where every facet of the framers design has been activated to try and save constitutional democracy and freedom. From the day he took office, Trump has tried to exercise powers like a king, trampling the rights of the people, usurping the powers of Congress, denouncing judges and threatening to defy the rulings of courts and violating the legitimate authority of states and their elected officials. Last Saturday, June 14th, which was Flag Day and the president's birthday, he chose to stage a $45 million military parade in the streets of Washington. In response, at least 7 million anti-monarchical Americans assembled in over 2,000 protests in cities and towns across America for the unveiling of No King's Day, a magnificent demonstration of the inextinguishable resiliency of popular constitutional democracy in the face of dictatorial designs against the people. But the people marching in the streets from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, from the boundary waters of Minnesota to New Orleans are not alone in this process. They reflect a powerful constitutional opposition in motion. Political leaders at the state level are fighting back in court along with their allies in Congress, and we are winning this fight every day in courtrooms across America. More than 328 lawsuits have been filed since Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, and Elon Musk took office, and federal courts across the land have remarkably issued 197 preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against this reign of lawlessness. The witnesses before us today, the attorney generals for the people of Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Illinois, are leaders in the fight for the constitution and federal laws that have been abandoned by the president. And these chief state lawyers are winning significant battles in front of judges appointed by both Republican presidents and Democratic presidents. They are even winning in courts where judges preside who were appointed by President Trump. This is exactly the kind of principled, no-nonsense leadership we need in these turbulent times, and Jamie Raskin continues to deliver. You can count on this channel to keep shining a light on the truth, cutting through the spin, and holding power accountable every step of the way. If you believe in that mission, be sure to hit that subscribe button, give this video a thumbs up, and if you've stayed with me to the end, drop a blue heart in the comments to show your support. For more in-depth analysis, don't forget to check out my new sub-stack. Until next time, stay informed, stay engaged, and I'll see you soon.