‘Enough Evident On Donald Trump’: Jamie Raskin Drops EPSTEIN FILES Bombshell Post Midterms

Uh, you oversee Todd Blanch. So what, what, how quickly will you have him up testifying before your committee? Well, he has to testify as a matter of just duty to come before the Judiciary Committee. But look how they started. Well, what are like two of the first things they did when they got in? One, they sacked every lawyer, every prosecutor at the Department of Justice and hundreds of other staff simply because they had done their jobs and worked on the January 6th investigation Thank Donald Trump incited a violent mob of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Klansmen, insurrectionists to attack our police officers and give them heart attacks, you strokes, traumatic brain injuries, broken jaws, arms, legs. very A number of them are disabled and are no longer in police work because they can't meet the physical qualifications for it in order to block the peaceful transfer of power. much. And the first thing they did was they got rid of anybody who had worked on the case. The largest criminal investigation. in American history. Well, what a scandal and an outrage that is. You want to look into that? Well, of course we've got to look into that. Another thing they did was they transferred the files on the Epstein case from the Southern District of New York to D.C. Then they buried them for six and a half months. And then on July 7th of 2025, they... They issued a letter saying that there was no evidence anywhere in these millions of documents that would be a predicate even for an investigation into potential co-conspirators or accomplices, right? Couldn't find it anywhere. We issued a report three weeks ago, absolutely devastating to that claim, refuting every part of it and showing, in fact, how there was enough evidence on Donald Trump alone. In his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein to justify further investigation with witnesses who we had coming forward. So, look, the Department of Justice. And I don't even think that Todd Blanch will disagree with this. It works right now for Donald Trump. That's it. Todd Blanche was Donald Trump's personal attorney. He became his personal attorney general. Look at the fraudulent prosecutions that they've brought, both under him and under Pam Bondi, against James Comey, the former FBI director, against Letitia James, against Senator Adam Schiff, against Senator Mark Kelly. Against Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, against Congressman Jason Crowe, against my constituent Davey Hearn. You guys heard about this one? This is not far from here. How many of you guys been over to the reflecting pool? You ever been there? I call it the Strait of Warm Ooze. I refuse. So my constituent, Davey, who's a great guy. He's taught generations of people, of young people in Montgomery County. By the way, anyone here from Montgomery County, Maryland? Any artistic? Well, welcome, you guys. A special greeting to you guys. So anyway, Davey, he goes on a bike ride. He's 67 years old. He stops at the reflecting pool. He dips his hand in the water, okay? Multiple federal agents pounce on him, arrest him, take him in, hold him for five hours. They charge him with felony destruction of federal government property. So be very careful what you're doing on your picnics, you guys. Thank you, guys. And then, so Trump wants him thrown away for 10 years. They want to put him in prison. We mount a whole campaign. There are lawyers who work with the different anti-Trump Resistance, opposition, solidarity groups who get involved. And the judge in the case, Judge Edelman, throws out the charges. With prejudice, saying he's not a criminal, he committed no crime, and they can never bring charges against him again because he was convinced that Donald Trump was going to continue to set him up because Trump resisted when they first dismissed the charges. So we got him freed. I wrote a letter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, whom you probably know, Janine Pirro. She was a Fox News hostess before she won. Do you want her to come testify before your committee? Perhaps, indeed. We have a lot of things we'd like to talk to her about. Janine Pirro, I wrote her a letter, and it was very simple. I said, number one, you should pay for Davey Hearn's legal fees. Number two, get your hands off my constituents. And number three, if you're still looking for a scofflaw criminal vandal who also happens to be a convicted felon at large who's been damaging federal property in amounts of more than $1,000, I've got a great lead on the guy who bulldozed. The East Wing of the White House illegally and has been desecrating the Kennedy Center. I haven't heard back from her yet. I'm sure you have. But I was in the minority then. Before we open it up to audience questions, I want to ask you about your committee is in charge of impeachment. You've been involved. You voted to impeach the president twice. I know you've answered this question in the past. But if you were just to look through your crystal ball right now, how likely is it that you launch an impeachment inquiry against President Trump? Well, let me tell you what I've said about it and what I believe really strongly about it. First of all, we're not afraid to impeach Donald Trump. We've impeached him twice already. He's got half of all the presidential impeachments in American history, right? It was Andrew Johnson during Reconstruction, Bill Clinton for doing you-know-what. I don't know if you guys were alive then. And then Donald Trump, the Ukraine shakedown and the diversion of federally appropriated dollars and then the incitement of a violent mob. To storm the Capitol and to try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power in an election that Joe Biden had beat him in by more than 7 million votes. The chances of it being happening a third time. No, that's four. We've had four. He has 50%. No, I'm saying the chances of him being impeached. So he'd have 60%. What are the chances he would have 60% of all the impeachments? I mean, I don't, you know, I'm not in the prognostication business. I'm not a pundit. I'm in the mobilization business. But you have the power to do this sort of thing. No, I understand, but, you know, okay. Then I'll give you my thinking about it, all right? Because you ask me a serious question, I'll give you a serious answer. It is, we are absolutely willing to do it because it's part of our constitutional oath to defend American democracy against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the framers wrote. You can't turn a blind eye just because it's uncomfortable impeaching someone, you know, who... You know, who breathes the same air you do in the same city. Really. But I'll say this, it's not a panacea, as we've seen, because of the two-thirds requirement in the Senate. There were seven Republicans who voted with 50 Democrats to convict him of that crime. Remember, we were not just at that point either voting to impeach like a prosecutor or voting to convict or acquit like jurors, as the senators were. We were witnesses, And in fact, we were victims of the crime. These Republicans would not even vote to convict when the mob was coming for them. You saw that picture of Speedy Josh Hawley running down the hallway, right? He voted to acquit. But seven of them, I think, lived up to their constitutional oath. And did the right thing. But Donald Trump has only tightened his stranglehold over the Republican Party. So it's a fruitless endeavor. They got rid of Liz Cheney. They got rid of Adam. Your point is that going down this road will be a fruitless endeavor. No, I disagree. It's not fruitless, okay? It's not fruitless. And you never know what's going to happen. But we understand the constitutional arithmetic here. He beat the constitutional odds, even though the whole world was convinced of his guilt. And that became even deeper when we had... The January 6th select committee, everybody knows he did it. I mean, it's not exactly like Agatha Christie novel. If it wasn't him, who was it? I mean, come on. Are you telling me that if Donald Trump had not been fighting for them to storm the Capitol, deny the results of the election, stop the steal and chase his own vice president out of the Capitol, it would have happened if he had never cooked up that idea? I mean, come on. I mean, if you believe that you're too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself, you know, I mean, it was all Donald Trump all the way. It's got him written all over it. Right. So but here's what is the risk political risk of going that far? I mean, they're obviously political risk. But let me just say a few other things about it. Impeachment applies not just to the president, but to every member of his cabinet. The first impeachment resolution against somebody in the Trump administration comes from a Republican. Thomas Massie, as you know, introduced it right before we left to go on another. That actually may pass next week. Yes, it's coming up. But they cut us loose two days early from their prolonged two month vacation to see if they could go back. And salvage their seats, which fortunately they couldn't. But in that time, they also were saying we don't want to vote on Pete Hegseth engaging in war crimes as alleged by a fellow Republican who said you can't just go and blow up people's boats and say those people are narcotics dealers without giving them due process. One of the Republicans said to me, well, wait, you're not saying you're for due process for guilty people, are you? And I'm like, that's the whole point. Like, we don't know if they're guilty unless there's been due process, right? And somebody who believes in due process is Donald Trump, the convicted felon out of New York. Who used every aspect of due process, the privilege against self-incrimination, the right not to testify, all the lawyers in the world. They understand due process when it comes to their crimes. But then they want to just blow up boats in the middle of the ocean without a declaration of war saying those people were drug criminals. Right. And a Republican called them on it. So impeachment can apply to other people. I think it will happen to other people. Well, again, you're asking me to predict. Well, what is the obsession with the media with predictions? Don't you want to analyze the issues? We want to know what you're going to do. Well, anyway, we don't know until we really thoroughly analyze it, and then we see where events take us. I mean, that's what investigations are about. I mean, how egregious are their crimes? There are some crimes that are so egregious, the public will demand an immediate impeachment. But what I want to tell you about, though, So is that the framers. I think it's important for us to be able to say that we want to keep it in the political processes so that we can adjudicate the relative merits, as you're saying, the urgency of it and its importance related to other things. For example, For example, if somebody said to me, and I believe he's already committed impeachable offenses. I believe that this illegal unconstitutional war, I think, impounding money, the bribery, the kickbacks, the violation of emoluments clauses. I think all those things can be brought. But is it more important for us to start this politically convoluted and torturous process that you're aware of with the Senate? Or is it more important to get millions of people? Their health care back that was stripped from them by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans in the wretched, hideous bill. I would tell you tonight it's much more important for us to get their health care back now than to launch into that process. And that's the kind of that's the kind of judgment we've got to make. Subscribe to One India and never miss an update. Download the OneIndia app now.